Environ Sci Pollut Res

DOI 10.1007/s11356-017-0303-9

REVIEW ARTICLE

An overview of municipal solid waste management and landfill

leachate treatment: Malaysia and Asian perspectives
Mohamad Anuar Kamaruddin 1,2 & Mohd Suffian Yusoff 3 & Lo Ming Rui 3 &
Awatif Md Isa 3 & Mohd Hafiz Zawawi 4 & Rasyidah Alrozi 5

Received: 1 November 2016 / Accepted: 21 September 2017

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Abstract Currently, generation of solid waste per capita in
Malaysia is about 1.1 kg/day. Over 26,500 t of solid waste is
disposed almost solely through 166 operating landfills in the
country every day. Despite the availability of other disposal
methods, landfill is the most widely accepted and prevalent
method for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal in devel-
oping countries, including Malaysia. This is mainly ascribed
to its inherent forte in terms cost saving and simpler operation-
al mechanism. However, there is a downside. Environmental
pollution caused by the landfill leachate has been one of the
typical dilemmas of landfilling method. Leachate is the liquid
produced when water percolates through solid waste and con-
tains dissolved or suspended materials from various disposed
materials and biodecomposition processes. It is often a high-
strength wastewater with extreme pH, chemical oxygen de-
mand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), inorganic
salts and toxicity. Its composition differs over the time and
space within a particular landfill, influenced by a broad spec-
trum of factors, namely waste composition, landfilling practice
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
* Mohamad Anuar Kamaruddin
anuar197@yahoo.com
1
Environmental Technology Division, School of Industrial
Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia
2
Center of Excellence, Geopolymer & Green Technology
(CEGeoGTech), Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Kangar, Perlis, Malaysia
3
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300
Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
4
College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Jalan Serdang,
Seksyen 11, 43650 Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
5
Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA,
Penang, Malaysia
(solid waste contouring and compacting), local climatic con-
ditions, landfill’s physico-chemical conditions, biogeochemis-
try and landfill age. This paper summarises an overview of
landfill operation and leachate treatment availability reported
in literature: a broad spectrum of landfill management oppor-
tunity, leachate parameter discussions and the way forward of
landfill leachate treatment applicability.
Keywords Landfill . Leachate . Operation . Municipal
solid waste
Introduction
Solid waste management in Malaysia has become a more
challenging task to authorities due to the exponential increase
in solid waste production (Hannan et al., 2015) as a result from
fast pace urbanisation and population growth with the expect-
ed population that will reach 33.4 million by year 2020 (Bong
et al., 2016). Based on the population growth year to year, it is
estimated that the solid waste generation will reach 31,000 t/
day by 2020 (Tan, et al., 2014). Traditionally, Malaysia is
practising conventional landfilling method for municipal solid
waste (MSW) disposal (Kadir et al., 2013). Current scenario
indicates that 94.5% of MSW are disposed on the landfill
whilst the remaining is diverted into resource recovery and
composted activities (Tan et al., 2014). However, significant
environmental impact by landfilling activity is associated with
this method. As the urbanisation has growth from time to time,
a number of existing landfills reach its maximum design ca-
pacity faster than its design life whereby construction of new
landfill sites has become difficult due to scarcity of land avail-
able for disposal (Moh and Manaf, 2014). Besides, impacts on
public health and safety issues have become the main reasons

that the dependency on landfilling for MSW disposal is less
favourable to the stakeholders.
Owing to the current situation of waste management, the
government of Malaysia has considered alternative solution
on solid waste management (SWM) to reduce the dependency
on landfilling method (Tan et al. 2015). Under the Tenth
Malaysian Plan, the government has been considering alter-
native methods for solid waste management such as waste-to-
energy (WTE) (incineration), composting, recycling non-
organic waste and inert landfill, which are solutions to be
practiced to reduce the dependence on MSW disposal from
conventional collection and disposal in unsanitary landfill
(Moh and Manaf, 2014, Fazeli et al., 2016). This article will
review the solid waste management in Malaysia. The discus-
sion will mainly focus on landfill operation and leachate treat-
ment because it is main option for disposal of MSW in
Malaysia. Despite the previous review, none has considered
an alternative method for MSW disposal. Hence, this review
will include an alternative method for disposing solid waste in
Malaysia with a comparison of its application, policy and also
its advantages and disadvantages to fill this gap.
The technology of solid waste disposal has evolved from
conventional to advanced systems which emphasise more on
the design, storage capacity and economical principle in re-
ceiving various types of wastes including leachate treatment
availability. These are the main factors taken into consider-
ation when planning a solid waste disposal site. Above all,
proper decisions during designing stage, operation and long-
term post-closure plan could ensure efficient monitoring of
leachate generation which by far continues to generate even
after the landfills have ceased their operation (Kamaruddin
et al., 2013). In general, a landfill will undergo chemical and
physical changes caused by the degradation process of solid
waste refuse with the soil matrix once the landfilling is com-
plete. Liquid percolates through solid waste matrix and assists
with rainwater’s biochemical, chemical and physical reactions
within solid waste refuse directly influencing the quantity and
quality of the leachate. Additionally, leachate quality and
quantity are also influenced by landfill age, precipitation,
weather variation, waste type and composition (Kamaruddin
et al., 2015a). Principally, a functional landfill site is always
built with a leachate treatment facility to remove hazardous
pollutants in the leachate. Therefore, finding a sustainable
method for leachate treatment has always been a priority for
landfill managers in order to safely discharge treated leachate
into the water bodies without endangering the environment.
Over the last decades, new and advanced landfill leachate
treatment methods have received significant interests which
offer better removal of pollutants. By utilising these new tech-
nologies, difficult parameters are much easier to treat nowa-
days. In the early days, landfill leachate was mainly disposed
by channelling the leachate pipes to the sewer system and
released into the sea. Alternatively, there was also a separate
Environ Sci Pollut Res
system where the leachate pipes connected to domestic sew-
age network at conventional sewage plant (Ahn et al. 2002)
and treated simultaenously. However, as the volume of leach-
ate generation increased over time with wide variations in
leachate pollutants, this method reduced the treatment effi-
ciency of sewage plant (Çeçen and Aktas 2004). Concerning
this, many additional treatments have been proposed and
invented in treating landfill leachate separately.
Virtually, various types of treatments have been explored
including biological, physical, chemical and physico-
chemical techniques. As far as the authors are concerned, most
of the treatments in the market today have their own advan-
tages and limitations. For example, biological treatment is
undoubtedly the most effective way in treating high concen-
tration of BOD5 (Renou et al. 2008). However, depending on
the nature of leachate pollutants, sludge bulking may occur in
conventional aerobic system which disturbs the leachate treat-
ability. Conventional physico-chemical techniques such as
chemical precipitation (Chen et al. 2012), adsorption (Ching
et al. 2011, Kamaruddin et al. 2015b, Lim et al., 2009, Singh
et al. 2012), coagulation/flocculation (Liu et al. 2012, Al-
Hamadani et al. 2011, Ghafari et al. 2010) and chemical oxi-
dation (Sun et al. 2009, Anglada et al. 2011, Cortez et al.
2011) may be used as co-treatment along biological treat-
ments. These techniques have been proven suitable in dealing
with difficult parameters in leachate including humic, fulvic
acid, heavy metals, adsorbable organically bound halogens
(AOXs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and several other
of persistent organic pollutants (Abbas et al. 2009). Very re-
cently, numerous studies have focused on new and advance
treatment. In view of that, various factors have been consid-
ered in proposing an ideal treatment system that results in high
efficiency of parameter reduction as to comply with the per-
missible discharge limit enforced by the authorities.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to summarise leachate
sustainable treatment processes including biological, physical
and chemical techniques reported in the past 10 years. The
articles discussed in depth about existing and new methods
in treating high concentration of leachate and its progress in
the recent years.
Relationship of MSW generation and other factors
Briefly, population exponential growth, urbanisation, eco-
nomic development and high consumption rates are the key
factors that propagate waste generation in Asian developing
cities (Bank 2011; Imura et al. 2005). They accelerate munic-
ipal solid waste generation, alter the waste composition and
revolutionise the waste management approaches (Table 1).
For major high-income Asian cities like Kuala Lumpur, the
quantity and quality of waste generation are apparently com-
parable to those in Western countries (USEPA 2010). In
Malaysia, MSW generation had risen more than 91% in last
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 1 Contaminants that

contribute to COD. Type Constituent

Biodegradable/non-biodegradable compounds
Suspended solids and liquids Microbes, colloids, emulsions, fat, oil and grease
Miscible liquids Alcohols, benzene, glycerin, oils, etc.
Dissolved solids and liquids Acids, salts, sugar, etc.
Inorganic compounds
Dissolved Cations: metals (Fe), metalloids (As)
Anions: CN-, NO2-, SO22-, S2-

Source: Morreno-Castillas ea tal. (2007)

10 years (Periathamby et al. 2009). Setting record by produc-
ing over 26,000 t of waste per day in 2010, average waste
generation rate in Malaysia is around 1.0 kg/capita/day and
increased up to 2.2 kg/capita/day in the major city, Kuala
Lumpur (Table 2). By the year 2020, Malaysian MSW gener-
ation is projected to rise inexorably to 36,800 t/day or over
13.4 million tonnes per annum (Bank 2011). Agamuthu
(2011) even predicted the number could go higher than
38,000 t/day by 2020. The increment of MSW generation rate
is largely due to the rapid annual population growth of 2.4%
since 1994 (Manaf and Samah, 2009). The figure is also ex-
pected to increase as Malaysia becomes wealthier, in tandem
with the waste generation trend in Asian countries (Fig. 1).
However, Malaysian waste generation pattern seems to be
more complex than expected. Current data analysis reveals
that relationship amongst income level, urbanisation and
waste generation in Malaysia is still indeterminate (Fig. 2).
MSW composition and its characteristics could indicate ele-
ments contained and their potential pernicious environmental
impacts. Understanding this matter is crucial for waste man-
agement planning (Idris et al. 2004). Feasible waste
minimisation and disposal scheme could be identified and
designed based on the waste composition studies. Indeed,
composition of MSW is highly heterogenous, dynamic and
influenced by socio-geographical factors. Lower-income de-
veloping countries with greater rural population like

Table 2 Influence of population

size, urbanisation and gross State Population Urbanisation level GDP/capita Waste generation Waste generation
domestic product (GDP) on (millions)a (%, compared at current (tonnes/day)c per capita
MSW generation rate in Malaysia to 2000)a price (RM)b (kg/capita/day)
(2010)
Johor 3.35 71.9 20,911 2800.29 0.83
Kedah 1.95 64.6 13,294 1936.66 0.99
Kelantan 1.54 42.4 8273 1512.41 0.98
Melaka 0.82 86.5 24,697 752.47 0.91
Negeri Sembilan 1.02 66.5 27,485 1106.99 1.08
Pahang 1.50 50.5 22,743 1399.59 0.93
Perak 2.35 69.7 16,088 2233.09 0.95
Perlis 0.23 51.4 15,296 285.90 1.24
Pulau Pinang 1.56 90.8 33,456 1590.35 1.01
Sabah 3.21 54.0 17,242 1990.91 0.62
Sarawak 2.47 53.8 33,307 1889.25 0.76
Selangor 5.46 91.4 31,363 4133.21 0.75
Terengganu 1.04 59.1 19,225 1290.75 1.24
Kuala Lumpur 1.67 100.0 55,951 3697.88 2.21
Labuan 0.09 82.3 29,116 95.21d 1.06d
Putrajaya 0.07 100.0 N.A. 36.45d 0.52d
Total (national) 28.30 71.0 27,113 26,751.41 0.95

N.A. not available

a
DOS (2011) (source)
b
DOS (2011) (source)
c
MHLG (2011) (source)
d
Estimated figure based on individual state MSW generation growth rate
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 1 Relationship between 1.5

GDP/capita in USD and MW
Brunei Darussalam

MW Generation Rate (kg/capita/day)

generation in Asian countries.
Adapted from AIT/UNEP (2010)
Japan
1.0
Republic of Korea
Singapore
Malaysia

Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Lao PDR Thailand
0.5
Indonesia
Mandalay, Myanmar
Vietnam
Philippines China

Mongolia

0.0
100 1,000 10,000 100,000
GDP/capita in USD (2006)

Myanmar, Cambodia and Indonesia generate more food or waste minimisation, with disposal like landfilling as the last
organic wastes (Fig. 3). There is no difference for Malaysia. resort (Fig. 5). The target improvements for Malaysian current
Organic waste contributes over 40% of the total MSW in waste management policies are outlined in Table 4.
Malaysia, whilst recyclables like paper, plastic, glass and met- Besides, Malaysian government has taken a leap in
al occupy much smaller portion of the waste stream (Table 3). adopting integrated sustainable solid waste management sys-
The organic waste has high moisture content with bulk density tem, federalising household waste collection and transporta-
over 200 kg/m3 (Manaf and Samah, 2009). tion in Malaysia. Solid Waste and Public Cleansing
SWM strategy in Malaysia has been transformed from sim- Management Act 2007 was gazetted and enforced in
ple guidelines in 1988 to current strategic management plan September 2011, giving power to the Federal Government to
(Fig. 4) (Agamuthu 2010). Under the Solid Waste and Public centralise and regulate solid waste management throughout
Cleansing Management Act 2007, solid waste management Malaysia except Sabah and Sarawak (Nadzri 2008).
services encompass separation, storage, collection, transporta- However, hitherto Pulau Pinang, Perak, Selangor, Kelantan
tion, transfer, processing, recycling, treatment and disposal of and Terengganu are exempted from the plan (MHLG 2012).
controlled solid waste. Currently, Malaysian policy and legis- Taking over responsibility on solid waste management from
lative frameworks are formulated, synchronised and promul- the local authorities could be a huge challenge for the
gated to actuate integrated sustainable Reduce, Reuse and Malaysian government, since no country had succeeded in
Recycle (3R)-based solid waste management. The thrust of this solid waste management centralisation (Bank 2011).
management strategy is set on waste management hierarchy Implementation of sustainable waste management in
concept identical to those of United Nations Environment Malaysia is still young vis-à-vis other developed countries like
Programme (UNEP) and European Union (EU), prioritising Japan and Singapore. Hezri (2010) had addressed its four

Fig. 2 GDP/capita, urbanisation 120

and waste generation/capita by
Urbanisation (%, compared to 2000)A

state in Malaysia. Adapted from

100 Kuala Lumpur
DOS, 2011, and MHLG (2011) Selangor
Pulau Pinang
Melaka
80 W. P. Labuan
Perak Johor

Kedah Negeri Sembilan

60 Terengganu
Sarawak
Perlis Sabah Pahang

40 Kelantan

20
*Bubble size indicates waste generation per capitaC

0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
GDP/capita at current price in RM (2010)B
Environ Sci Pollut Res

GDP/capita
Fig. 3 MSW composition in (USD)
Asian countries. Adapted from Japan 15.0 34,264
AIT/UNEP (2010) Mongolia 16.8 1,224
Singapore 19.8 31,028
Republic of Korea 26.3 18,395
Lao PDR 30.0 581
Philippines 32.7 1,352
Brunei-Muara, Brunei Darussalam 36.0 30,342
Hanoi, Vietnam 41.9 723
Thailand 43.0 3,166
Malaysia 47.0 5,943
China 49.0 2,022
Indonesia 63.0 1,641
Phnom Penh, Cambodia 63.3 513
Myanmar 73.3 232
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food wastes Paper Plastic Metal Glass Others

major constraints: (1) waste management federalisation is less
applicable for devolving power at lower level; (2) waste man-
agement service privatisation has proven to be problematic in
the past; (3) the roles of government and businesses in 3R
implementation are over-emphasised neglecting potential of
informal recycling; and (4) public awareness on waste issues
is still moderately low. Multi-faceted cooperation from the
solid waste management stakeholders is imperative in
realising national waste management goals.
Landfill
Overview
Ranked at the bottom of sustainable waste management hierar-
chy, final waste disposal technologies like sanitary landfill and
incineration remain crucial albeit immense amount of waste can
be slashed through 3Rs. Landfilling is broadly recognised as a
proper waste disposal method outdoing incineration, because the
latter only reduces waste volume but still generates residuals and
gaseous pollutants that require ultimate disposal. Despite munic-
ipal solid waste disposal by landfilling has been debated as a
misnomer hiding the waste under cover, it is still the inherently
prevalent solution for developing countries (Vesilind et al. 2010).
It is preferred in tackling overwhelming MSW conundrums due
to its simpler operational protocol and cost-effectiveness (Aziz
et al. 2007). Now, landfill construction and operation costs in
Malaysia are estimated at RM 30 million and RM 28.80–49.00
per tonne of solid waste, respectively (MHLG 2012). Of
Malaysian MSW, 95–97% is disposed in landfills (Nadzri
2007) and, by the year 2020, 44% of them will be disposed in
sanitary landfills (Periathamby et al. 2009).
Landfill classification system
In Malaysia, landfills are categorised using three classification
systems which are based on indicators like decomposition
process employed, operational status for sanitary landfill and
type of waste disposed. The details of these classification sys-
tems are featured in the following sections.

Table 3 Waste composition in

Malaysia Waste composition Percentage of wet weight

19751 19801 19851 19901 19951 20001 20052

Organic 63.7 54.4 48.3 48.4 45.7 43.2

45.0
Paper 7.0 8.0 23.6 8.9 9.0 23.7 7.0
Plastic 2.5 0.4 9.4 3.0 3.9 11.2
24.0
Glass 2.5 0.4 4.0 3.0 3.9 3.2 3.0
Metal 6.4 2.2 5.9 4.6 5.1 4.2 6.0
Textiles 1.3 2.2 N.A. N.A. 2.1 1.5 N.A.
Wood 6.5 1.8 N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.7 N.A.
Others 0.9 0.3 8.8 32.1 4.3 12.3 15.0

N.A. not available

a
Periathamby et al. (2009)
b
NSWMD (2011)
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Management Guidelines of Clinical and

related Wastes in Hospitals and Healthcare
Establishments (1993) Solid Waste and Public Cleansing
Management Corporation
Strategic Plan (2009-2013)

Action Plan for Waste Management in

Hospitals and Healthcare Establishment 1993 National Solid Waste Management Policy
(2006)
Signatory to Agenda 21,
UN Conference on
Environment and Development (1992)

Master Plan on National Waste Minimization

(2006-2020)

Earth Summit (1992)

National Strategic Plan
Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Act 1978 Basel Convention on the for Solid Waste Management in Malaysia
Control of Transboundary Movements (2005) 2+1 Solid Waste
of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
Collection System
(1989)
(2012)
World Summit on Sustainable Development
Action Plan for a
UN Conference on Human Environment (2002)
Beautiful and Clean Malaysia (1988)
1972

1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 Year

Environmental Quality Act
Local Government Act 1976
Environmental Quality (Environmental (Scheduled Waste) Regulations 2005
Impact Assessment ) Act 1987
Environmental Quality Act 1974 Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Solid Waste and Public Cleansing
Act 1998 Management Corporation Act 2007
[Act 673]

Environmental Quality Act

(Prescribed Activities) Order 1989
Solid Waste and Public Cleansing
Management Act 2007 [Act 672]

Fig. 4 Malaysian roadmap towards sustainable solid waste management. Adapted from MHLG (2012), Agamuthu (2010), IGES et al. (2009), Goh
(2007)

Classification based on decomposition process according to their operational status. However, the Technical
Guideline for Sanitary Landfill, Design and Operation,
In this classification system, microbial degradation environ- August 2006 by the Department of Local Government,
ment is determined whilst its aeration and leachate collection Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG),
measures are evaluated for further distinction. Table 5 de- Malaysia has included open dumping as level 0 landfill.
scribes the characteristics of the landfill types. Landfill levels classified by MHLG, Malaysia can be
categorised as follows:
Classification based on sanitary landfill system
Level 0: open dumping
Sanitary landfill is an engineered waste disposal method Level 1: controlled tipping
emphasising technical aspects like siting, design, operation Level 2: sanitary landfill with a bund and daily cover soil
and long-term environmental impacts. Unlike sanitary land- Level 3: sanitary landfill with leachate recirculation
fill, open dumpsite is not designed to deal with leachate, land- Level 4: sanitary landfill with leachate treatment
fill gas and odour management. Therefore, typical sanitary
landfill system excludes un-engineered open dumpsite and Technical aspects of each level are shown in Table 6. In
divides landfills into four different levels (levels 1–4) Malaysia, only eight landfills are considered as sanitary

Fig. 5 Comparison between Waste

Malaysian and UNEP/EU waste Reduce
prevention
management hierarchies. Adapted
from UNEP (2010), European Reuse Reuse
Less
Commission (2010) and MHLG
favoured
(2009) opons
Recycle Recycle

Other recovery (e.g energy) Intermediate treatment

Disposal (e.g. landfill) Final Disposal

UNEP & EU Malaysia

Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 4 National Strategic Plan

for Solid Waste Management Level of service Present 2003–2009 (%) 2010–2014 (%) 2015–2020 (%)
(NSPSWM) targets (%)

Extend collection service 75 80 85 90

Reduction and recovery 3–4 10 15 22
Closure of dump sites 112 sites 50 70 100
Source separation (urban) None 20 80 100

Source: EPU (2006)

landfills. Details regarding current Malaysian landfill
levels are unavailable. However, Idris and Inanc, 2004
claimed that there were 77 open dumpsites, 49 controlled
tipping landfills (level 1) and 35 level 2–4 landfills in
2002 (Table 7). To tackle overwhelming MSW conun-
drums in Malaysia, ten new landfills will be constructed
whilst 42 existing landfills will be upgraded under the
Tenth Malaysia Plan (2011–2015).
Classification based on waste type
Landfills in Malaysia are also classified according to waste
type. Following countries like Australia and Japan, Prof.
Zaini Ujang divides landfills in Malaysia into three classes:
class I, hazardous waste; class II, designated waste; and class
III, municipal solid waste (Ujang 2004; UNEP 2005). This is
similar to the European Commission Waste Landfill Directive
(1999) which categorises landfills into waste landfills for haz-
ardous waste, non-hazardous waste and inert waste (Sunkin
et al., 2002; Williams 2013). Nevertheless, classification sys-
tem under German Waste Disposal regulation is more detailed
with five classes as follows:
Class 0: inert waste
Class I: quite inert municipal waste (e.g. some incinera-
tion ashes)
Class II: municipal waste
Class III: hazardous waste
Class IV: underground disposal site (inert waste and
hazardous/nuclear waste in salt caverns) (Kühle-
Weidemeier 2003)
Semi-aerobic landfill (Fukuoka method)
Semi-aerobic landfill is the most desirable landfill design for
Malaysia (MHLG 2006). It is also referred to as “passive
aeration” by the United Nations (UN) and was approved as a
new Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) on 15
July 2011(Tashiro 2011). Initiated by Prof. Masataka
Hanashima of Fukuoka University, a pilot semi-aerobic land-
fill was first tested in 1975 at Shin-Kamata Landfill in
Fukuoka, Japan (Chong et al. 2005). The so-called Fukuoka
method has been practically tested throughout Japan and other
countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, China, Sri
Lanka and Iran. It is initially designed for temperate climate
and adopted in tropical countries since 1980s.
In a semi-aerobic landfill system, oxygen flows into the
waste mass through the leachate collection pipes by passive
ventilation to accelerate aerobic microbial decomposition in
the waste body. It hastens waste stabilisation and improves
leachate water quality. Meanwhile, leachate and gas are
discharged continuously using leachate collection and gas
venting system. The mechanism of Fukuoka method is illus-
trated in Fig. 6. Semi-aerobic landfill design requires meticu-
lous planning by considering actual site conditions like

Table 5 Landfill classification system based on decomposition process employed

Landfill type Characteristics

Anaerobic landfill
Anaerobic sanitary landfill covered daily
Improved anaerobic sanitary landfill
Semi-aerobic landfill with natural ventilation and
leachate collection facilities
Aerobic landfill with forced aeration
Solid wastes are filled in dug area of plane field or valley. Waste is commingled with water in
anaerobic condition
Solid waste is covered in a sandwich shape. Condition in solid waste is same as anaerobic landfill
Leachate collection system is installed at the bottom of the landfill site. Others are the same as
anaerobic sanitary landfill. The conditions are still anaerobic but the moisture content is much
less than anaerobic sanitary landfill
Leachate collection duct is bigger than the one of improved sanitary landfill. The opening of the
duct is surrounded by air and the duct is covered with small crushed stones. Moisture content in
solid waste is low. Oxygen is supplied to the solid waste from leachate collection duct
The leachate collection pipe and air supply pipes are attached. Air is forced to enter solid waste
causing it becomes more aerobic than semi-aerobic landfill
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 6 Operational criteria for

sanitary landfill (levels 0–4) Facility/operation Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Perimeter fence ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Drainage facility ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Daily soil cover ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Enclosing embankment ✓ ✓ ✓
Designated unloading area ✓ ✓ ✓
Separated working area ✓ ✓ ✓
Scavenging prohibition ✓ ✓ ✓
Environmental protection ✓ ✓ ✓
Gas venting ✓ ✓ ✓
Leachate collection ✓ ✓
Leachate recirculation ✓ ✓
Leachate monitoring ✓ ✓
Leachate treatment ✓
Liner ✓

Adapted from DOLG (2006) and Agamuthu and Fauziah (2008)

precipitation rate, ambient temperature, soil foundation and
rainwater flow area (Matsufuji 2007). Semi-aerobic landfill
is claimed to be a simple environmentally and economically
sound technology. The advantages of semi-aerobic landfill are
listed down as follows:
& It purifies leachate significantly by increasing waste de-
composition rate.
& It contributes towards global warming mitigation by re-
ducing methane gas emission substantially.
& The risk of gas explosion and fire hazard is reduced by
releasing gas from ventilation pipes.
& It converts open dumps into sanitary landfills in an easier
way.
& Earlier landfill rehabilitation is expected through en-
hanced stabilisation.

Table 7 Solid waste disposal

sites in Malaysia (as of September State Closed landfill Operating landfill
2015)
Non-sanitary landfill Non-sanitary landfill Sanitary landfill Sum
(Inert landfill)

Johor 23 12 – 2 14
Kedah 6 9 – – 9
Kelantan 6 13 – – 13
Melaka 5 2 – – 2
Negeri Sembilan 11 7 – – 7
Pahang 16 16 – – 16
Perak 12 17 – – 17
Perlis 1 1 – – 1
Pulau Pinang 1 1 1 – 2
Sabah 2 19 – – 19
Sarawak 14 46 – 3 49
Selangor 14 3 2 3 8
Terengganu 12 8 – – 8
Kuala Lumpur 7 0 – – 0
Labuan 0 1 – – 1
Sum 130 155 3 8 166
Total 296

Adapted from MHLG (2012), NSWMD (2011)

Environ Sci Pollut Res
Fig. 6 Semi-aerobic landfill
mechanism. Source: Tashiro
(2011b)
& It is cost-effective. This is due to the high degree of free-
dom in construction material selection and utilisation of
less intensive leachate treatment system.
It is easy to construct, operate and maintain. Self-purifying
capacity is used to stabilise waste body and only requires
commonly used machinery and equipment. Unfortunately, in
tropical climate, semi-aerobic landfill’s convectional air flow
and air penetration into the waste mass are weaker due to the
higher ambient temperature and precipitation rate, respective-
ly (Yamada 2011). To overcome these constraints and propel
wider usage globally, the National Institute for Environmental
Studies (NIES), Japan is currently augmenting the landfill
design in collaboration with Laem Chabang Municipality
and Kasetsart University, Thailand (Yamada 2011).
Principals of decomposition of waste in landfill
Generally, decomposition in landfill can be divided into three
categories, i.e. physical, chemical and biological decomposi-
tion. Their progress rates are highly dependent on the waste
characteristics. Physical decomposition occurs during segre-
gation and mechanical size reduction, whilst chemical decom-
position involves processes like combustion, pyrolysis and
gasification. Biological degradation initiates right after the
waste is transferred into the landfill. In fact, the waste has
started undergoing biodeterioration right after the waste is
being thrown away.
Biodegradation is the part that we are concerned. It gen-
erates highly contaminated hazardous leachate and gases.
It involves two key processes, i.e. solubilisation and gasi-
fication, which are governed by both aerobic and anaerobic
decomposition (Matsufuji 2007). Solubilisation process
produces soluble organic acids, ammonia and carbon diox-
ide (CO 2), subsequently increases biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) level in leachate and reduces its pH level;
the gasification process generates gas from organic acid,
reducing BOD level and increasing pH (Matsufuji 2007).
Biodegradation is driven by aerobic and anaerobic mi-
crobes which are usually from soil cover, MSW, recirculated
leachate and wastewater treatment sludge. Seven major anaer-
obic bacteria are depicted in Table 8. Most studies divide
biodegradation into five distinct phases (O'Leary, 2002;
Worrell and Vesilind, 2011). Figure 7 illustrates the landfill
leachate and gas generation of each phase. The rate of each
phase is different for each landfill due to heterogenous phys-
ical, chemical and biological environments within the land-
fills. Hence, composition of leachate produced is used as an
indicator to determine the degree of waste stabilisation
(Table 9). This is vital for environmental monitoring, especial-
ly for the design and operation of leachate management facil-
ities (Foo, 2009; Matsufuji 2007).
Landfill leachate
After landfilling, solid waste undergoes physico-chemical and
biological changes. As a result of precipitation, surface runoff
Table 8 Important microbial groups promoting anaerobic waste
degradation
Microbial group Substrate
Amylolytic bacteria Starches
Proteolytic bacteria Proteins
Cellulolytic bacteria Cellulose
Hemicellulolytic bacteria Hemicellulose
Hydrogen-oxidising methanogenic bacteria Hydrogen
Acetoclastic methanogenic bacteria Acetic acid
Sulphate-reducing bacteria Sulphate
Source: Worrell and Vesilind (2011)
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

and infiltration or intrusion of groundwater percolating

through landfill storage, the degradation of the organic frac-
tion of the wastes in combination with percolating rainwater
leads to the generation of a highly contaminated liquid called
“leachate” (Kurniawan, 2006; Renou et al. 2008; Wang et al.
2002). In short, leachate is the liquid that has percolated
through waste mass and infused with dissolved or suspended
matters (O’Leary 2002). It is turbid, malodorous and often
dark brownish in colour. Leachate can be characterised by
two major factors, i.e. quantity (volumetric flow rate) and
quality (chemical composition) (Renou et al. 2008; Tatsi and
Zouboulis 2002).

Leachate quantity

In Malaysia, each tonne of MSW generates 150 l of leachate

Fig. 7 Schematic of water balance components within a landfill. Source:
Worrell and Vesilind (2011)
(Agamuthu and H. 2008). Based on daily MSW generation
rate of over 26,000 t in 2010, it is estimated that over 3.9
million litres of leachate is produced every day in Malaysia
nowadays. Estimation of leachate production over landfill’s
life span is crucial for environmental monitoring and potential

Table 9 Landfill constituent

concentration ranges as a function Parameter Transition Acid formation Methane fermentation Maturation
of landfill stabilisation degree
COD, mg/L 480–18,000 1500–71,000 580–9760 31–900
Total VOA, mg/L as acetic acid 100–3000 3000–18,800 250–4000 0
Ammonia, mg/L-N 120–125 2–1030 6–430 6–430
pH 6.7 4.7–7-7 6.3–9.0 7.1–9.0
Conductivity, μS/cm 2450–3310 1600–17,100 2900–7700 1400–4500
BOD5, mg/L N.A. 4000–40,000 20–550 N.A.
BOD5/COD ratio > 0.5 0.58 0.06 < 0.1
Sulphate, mg/L N.A. 70–1750 10–420 N.A.
Calcium, mg/L N.A. 10–2500 20–600 N.A.
Magnesium, mg/L N.A. 50–1150 40–350 N.A.
Iron, mg/L N.A. 20–2100 3–280 N.A.
Manganese, mg/L N.A. 0.3–65 0.03–45 N.A.
Zinc, mg/L N.A. 0.1–120 0.03–4 N.A.
Potassium, mg/L N.A. 1085a N.A.
Sodium, mg/L N.A. 1340a N.A.
Phosphorus, mg/L N.A. 6a N.A.
Cadmium, mg/L N.A. 0.005a N.A.
Chromium, mg/L N.A. 0.28a N.A.
Cobalt, mg/L N.A. 0.05a N.A.
Copper, mg/L N.A. 0.065a N.A.
Lead, mg/L N.A. 0.09a N.A.
Nickel, mg/L N.A. 0.17a N.A.
Chloride, mg/L N.A. 2120a N.A.

Adapted from Worrell and Vesilind (2011), Kjeldsen et al. (2002)

N.A. not available
a
No significant difference between acid formation and methane fermentation phases
Environ Sci Pollut Res
risk management. Leachate formation is dependent on the
water balance of landfill site. Water balance is the general term
used to conceptualise the variation of moisture content in
landfill over time due to water inputs and outputs. Leachate
formation propagates when the moisture content in waste cell
exceeds its field capacity, the maximum moisture content that
a porous medium able to hold.
The quantity of leachate generation is affected by two com-
ponents, i.e. (1) direct landfill moisture contributors like rain-
fall, snowmelt, groundwater intrusion, initial moisture and
leachate recirculation and (2) landfill moisture distribution
influencers namely refuse age, pretreatment, permeability,
compaction, particle size and density (El-Fadel et al. 2002).
All factors must be taken into consideration for leachate gen-
eration estimation.
Leachate production can be calculated using the Water
Balance Method developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (Fenn et al., 1975). It is a one-
dimensional analysis concluding the amount of water that en-
ters remains and egresses from the soil cover and waste mass.
The quantity of potential leachate generation is the amount of
water in excess of landfill field capacity. This method has been
adapted and developed into other more sophisticated models
like the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Schroeder
et al., 1994), Neural Network-based Leachate Prediction
(NN-Leap) (Karaca and Özkaya 2006), Serial Water Balance
Method (De Velásquez et al. 2003), Flow Investigation of
Landfill Leachate (FILL) (Khanbilvardi et al. 1995) and
SOILINER (Johnson 1986). Besides, Min et al. (2010) had
proved that MODFLOW-SURFACT can be used to estimate
landfill leachate hydraulic performance as well. Amongst all,
the HELP, which is free and currently at its 3.07 version, is the
most broadly utilised model. However, several studies
claimed that it should only be used for landfill design evalu-
ation since the results generated over time are often inconsis-
tent with actual scenarios (Donevska et al. 2010; Min et al.
2010; São Mateus et al. 2012; Shariatmadari et al. 2010;
Worrell and Vesilind, 2011).
Leachate quality
Although USEPA (USEPA 2010) have categorised landfill
leachate as an excluded hazardous waste, uncontrolled by
principal hazardous waste regulations under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), it is still widely
considered as a complex naturally occurring hazardous liquid.
Toxicity analyses using various batteries of bioassays from
multiple trophic levels have concluded that municipal landfill
leachate is genotoxic and highly ecotoxic (irrespective of its
stabilisation status), equivalent to that of industrial landfill
leachate (Emenike et al. 2012; Jemec et al. 2012; Matejczyk
et al. 2011; Pablos et al. 2011; Rojas and Sahagún 2012;
Widziewicz et al. 2012).
The pollutants generated depend on the physical, chemical
and biological mediated processes, particularly waste biodeg-
radation process (Worrell and Vesilind, 2011; Wu et al. 2004).
Owing to that, leachate quality varies over time depending on
the waste biodegradation phases. Leachate contains various
organic materials (biodegradable and non-biodegradable car-
bon, humic acids and fulvic acids) and the inorganic material
such as colloidal, heavy metals and non-organic salts like
sodium, calcium, sulphate, ammonia and high concentration
toxics (Aziz et al. 2004; Kang et al., 2002; Wang et al. 2002).
Classification of leachate constituents into four major princi-
pal components listed below has been propounded
(Christensen et al. 1994; Kjeldsen et al. 2002).
Dissolved organic matter [chemical oxygen demand
(COD), total organic carbon (TOC), volatile fatty acids
(VFA) and more refractory compounds like fulvic-like and
humic-like compounds], inorganic macrocomponents [calci-
um (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), sodium (Na+), potassium
(K+), ammonium (NH4+), iron (Fe2+), manganese (Mn2+),
chloride (Cl−), sulphate (SO42-) and hydrogen carbonate
(HCO3−)], heavy metals [cadmium (Cd2+), chromium (Cr3+),
copper (Cu2+), lead (Pb2+), nickel (Ni2+) and zinc (Zn2+)] and
xenobiotic organic compounds (XOCs) and other aromatic
compounds are usually presence in relatively low concentra-
tion, i.e. less than 1 mg/L of individual compounds. Amongst
all, contaminants like organic matters, ammoniacal-nitrogen,
heavy metals and colour are fundamentals in leachate quality
assessment. Predominance of these constituents in landfill
leachate quality is of utmost concern. Understanding of these
contaminants is crucial for the implementation of viable leach-
ate treatment designs.
Leachate parameters
Organic matters
Organic detritus is broken down through oxidation or digested
by water-borne bacteria to produce energy for growth and
reproduction, causing scarcity of dissolved oxygen for other
organisms, fish in particular. Organic matter or so-called or-
ganic loading in leachate is usually determined by measuring
its COD, BOD and TOC. BOD, COD and TOC are measured
by oxidising organic matter using bacteria, chemical agents
and thermal process, respectively.
COD is commonly used for discharge consent, whereas
BOD is favoured for surface water discharge consent due to
its substantial impacts on flora and fauna (EPA 2000). BOD is
similar to COD as they both indicate the amount of organic
compounds in water through oxygen demand measurement.
However, BOD is more specific targeting biologically active
organic matters, whereas COD considers all chemically

oxidisable compounds. COD level is contributed by any bio-
degradable organic compounds, non-biodegradable com-
pounds and inorganic oxidisable compounds (Moreno-
Casillas et al. 2007). Wider variety of organic matter that
contribute to COD also makes COD value usually greater than
BOD value. In actual practise, COD is the most desirable
alternative to BOD. COD testing only takes few hours whilst
BOD5 requires 5 days. Despite COD as an independent assay
from BOD, they share an empirical relationship enabling
BOD value prediction using COD value (Kiepper 2010).
Moreover, BOD5/COD ratio can be utilised to assess the
biodegradability and the toxicity of organic compounds that
inhibit BOD5 measurement. If the ratio is high, the sample
contains more biodegradable materials and less toxicity or
vice versa. Leachate is classified as fresh, intermediate or
stabilised if its BOD5/COD value is > 0.5, 0.1–0.5 or < 0.1,
respectively (Amokrane et al., 1997; Comstock et al. 2010;
Huo et al. 2009; Kjeldsen et al. 2002). Leachate with BOD5/
COD ratio less than 0.1 is also considered as toxic (Samudro
and Mangkoedihardjo 2010). Using BOD5/COD ratio zona-
tion concept, Samudro and Mangkoedihardjo (2010) had sug-
gested a leachate treatment decision-making methodology
(Fig. 8). It can be used as a reference during leachate treatment
facility design.
Ammoniacal-nitrogen
Nitrogen compounds in leachate are organic nitrogen, ammo-
niacal-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen and nitrite. The nitrogen com-
pounds are leached slowly from the breakdown of protein and
other nitrogen-containing organic compounds. They are bio-
logically interchangeable depending on ambient conditions.
Ammoniacal-nitrogen is of utmost concern to environmental-
ists. Ammoniacal-nitrogen (NH3-N) is identified as the major
contaminant that remains in mature landfill leachate and has
Fig. 8 BOD5/COD triangle BOD5/COD
zones for feasible leachate
treatment selection. Adapted from
1.0
Samudro and Mangkoedihardjo
(2010)
BOD5 (mg/L)
COD (mg/L)
Environ Sci Pollut Res
adverse impacts on living organisms (EPA 2000; Kjeldsen
et al. 2002; Slack et al. 2005). It takes the nature several
decades to reduce the NH3-N concentration to safe level
(EPA 2000). Indeed, a landfill site may still produce leachate
with high concentration of NH3-N over 50 years after filling
operations have ceased (Chu et al. 1994).
High concentration of NH3-N can stimulate algal growth,
inhibit biodegradation, hinder biological treatment perfor-
mance, restrain nitrification, reduce dissolved oxygen through
eutrophication and have toxic effects on aquatic organisms
(Aydın and Kuleyin 2011; Bashir et al. 2010; Jokela et al.
2002; Uygur and Kargı 2004). EPA (2000) also stressed that
it exhibits acute toxicity effects on salmonid and non-
salmonid fish species at a concentration between 0.002 and
10 mg/L (non-ionised ammonia).
Heavy metals
Leachate pollution potential or ecotoxicology is usually
scrutinised based on metallic elements like Pb, Cd, copper
(Cu), zinc (Zn), chromium (Cr) and nickel (Ni) (Kjeldsen
et al. 2002; Øygard et al. 2007). Most heavy metals in leachate
are emanated by the waste disposed in landfill, especially with
the overwhelming high-tech product consumption in current
technosphere. As discussed previously, during the acetogenic
phase, greater metal solubility in acidic condition results in
high concentrations of metals like iron, manganese, calcium
and magnesium in leachate (Table 16). Heavy metals are in-
soluble and remain at low concentrations during the methan-
ogenic stage.
Landfill leachate is one of the major anthropogenic heavy
metal sources in nature. Many heavy metals are vital for living
organisms. Deficiency of these essential trace elements will
have adverse impact on their biological functions. However,
when they exceed the optimal levels, they may be toxic and
phytotreatment
Microbial &
Natural treatment
Acceptable
/stable
zone Toxic zone
(3rd Priority (1st Priority
0 Local 10 50 100 50,000 (Non-linear)
0 Local 50 100 500 100,000 (Non-linear)
Environ Sci Pollut Res
malignant. Discharging heavy metal polluted leachate into
ecological pathways particularly waterways exposes us to
the risk of heavy metal contamination. These metallic ele-
ments enter our food web and are ingested into our bodies
through food and water consumptions. The worst part is
metals are persistent and do not break down, neither in natural
environment nor in our bodies. They only transform from one
oxidation or complex state to another (Agarwal et al. 2010;
Nordberg et al., 2007). They will accumulate in our bodies
until they are eliminated through gastrointestinal and renal
excretions (Nordberg et al., 2007). Bioaccumulation of heavy
metals in tissue over extended timescales could lead to lethal
toxic stress in our bodies, causing chronic health effects. The
similar scenarios occur on flora and fauna.
Literally, heavy metal concentration is relatively low in
mature landfill leachate compared to other water quality pa-
rameters like ammoniacal-nitrogen and COD. Hence, they are
usually of less concern in leachate treatment design. However,
the cocktail effect of these low concentrated metals has been
underrated (Backhaus and Faust 2012; Nordberg et al., 2007).
It is strongly believed that the mixture of low concentrated
metals may cause acute health problems, though there is still
a huge gap in the understanding of their interaction
mechanisms and ecotoxicity.
Colour
Colour is a direct visual indicator for wastewater contamina-
tion level. Although this may not be absolutely true, it does
have a close relationship with wastewater quality. Aziz et al.
(2007) had confirmed that leachate colour is attributed to or-
ganic matter in leachate. This argument is in line with other
researchers who suggested that humid substances formed
from organic materials contribute to leachate colour
(Annadurai et al., 2004; Wu et al. 2010; Zouboulis et al.
2004).
Humid substances are complex macromolecular products
derived from any organic matter like animal and plant debris
(like lignin, carbohydrates and proteins), microfauna, biolog-
ical waste and pesticides (Wu et al. 2010). Humic substances
are divided into three fractions namely humic acids, fulvic
acids and humin according to their solubility in different pH
conditions. Humic acids are not soluble in water under acidic
conditions (pH < 2) but are soluble at higher pH. Fulvic acids
are soluble at any pH whilst humin is not soluble at any pH.
Humin is of less concern since it is hydrophobic.
During the landfill maturation process, the biodegradable
fraction of organic compounds is reduced. However, the re-
fractory humic substances, particularly humic acids and fulvic
acids, remain ubiquitous as the major constituent of dissolved
organic matters (Christensen et al. 1994; Kang et al. 2002;
Wiszniowski et al. 2004). Due to high concentration of humic
substance in landfill leachate, leachate may appear yellow,
brown or even black in colour (Zouboulis et al. 2004).
Several studies have stated that humic substance may bind
with heavy metals and organic pollutants like pesticides, in-
secticides and herbicides in leachate and transfers them into
the environment (Kang et al. 2002; Nanny and Ratasuk 2002).
Unfortunately, these recalcitrant compounds are harsh and
hard to be treated. They cause biofouling (Yuan and Zydney
1999), hinder organic pollutant decomposition in acidic con-
dition (Lipczynska-Kochany and Kochany 2008), increase
coagulant demand and inhibit adsorption process. Besides,
when they undergo disinfection with chlorine, they will react
and form carcinogens like trihalomethanes and halogenic
acids (Kang et al. 2002; Katsumata et al. 2008). In short,
colour is a useful prognostic environmental risk assessment
tool for leachate because it reflects the concentration of recal-
citrant humic compounds in leachate.
Factors affecting leachate characteristics
Leachate generation and its composition are attributed to var-
ious factors which can be categorised into landfill operation
(compaction of waste, operation method, daily cover material,
waste/landfill age, superficial drainage, site hydrology, infil-
tration), solid waste characteristics (type and original moisture
content, water-holding capacity) and climatic conditions (rain-
fall, humidity, ambient temperature, evaporation, evapotrans-
piration) (Aziz et al. 2004). However, only major factors like
solid waste characteristics, climatic condition and landfill age
will be elucidated.
Solid waste composition
Heterogeneity of solid waste characteristics in landfill contrib-
utes immensely to the variation of leachate characteristics
(Ehrig and Robinson 2010). Most contaminants in leachate
are from the disposed waste as the waste breaks down and
infuses the pollutants into leachate. Only a little portion of
them is due to geochemical sources.
Generally, waste chemical composition or its relative pro-
portion of putrescible matter determines the extent of bio-
chemical decomposition in landfill, whilst physical waste
properties like density influences water percolation through
the waste, resulted in different leachate flow rates. Owing to
this, waste with high organic and moisture contents escalates
formation of extremely strong leachate (El-Fadel et al. 2002).
Several studies had found that organic waste minimisation
measures like segregation, waste pretreatment with
composting and recycling had significant augmenting impacts
on leachate quality (Jokela et al. 2002). Even modifying or-
ganic waste physical properties like shredding would increase
surface area for biochemical process and promote waste
stabilisation (Komilis et al. 1999). However, Elagroudy et al.

(2009) asserted that altering waste density does not do the
trick and has little effect on leachate quality.
Based on the correlation between waste composition and
leachate characteristics, scientists have recommended a review
of current landfilling operational practices, opting for a more
cost-effective leachate treatment framework (Ehrig and
Robinson 2010).
Climatic condition
Seasonal climatic variations influence leachate characteristics
by altering ambient temperature and landfill water balance.
Temperature and moisture content have immense impact on
microbial activity and subsequently affect waste biodegrada-
tion efficiency in landfill. Besides, the more water input into
the waste mass, the more leachate generation.
Several studies had denoted the significance of humidity or
moisture content in MSW stabilisation (González et al. 2011).
Tränkler et al. (2005) found that biodegradation is slower dur-
ing the dry season or in dry areas but improves during the
rainy season. The same research also claimed that over 60%
of the precipitation contributed in leachate formation. Hence,
the quantity of leachate generated is dependent on water in-
gression, especially rainfall.
In terms of the temperature, biological decomposition ap-
pears to be faster in higher temperature (Reinhart 1998).
Higher temperature induces greater bacterial activity and
propels biochemical breakdown of solid waste. Therefore,
the leachate quality varies with temperature fluctuations.
Khattabi et al. (2002) proved this point as his hourly leachate
quality observation showed that leachate generated during
the midday had higher electrical conductivity, chloride and
COD.
To summarise, the quantity and quality of landfill leachate
are dependent on climatic conditions. Hot and humid weather
induces greater production of less contaminated landfill
leachate.
Landfill age
Studies unfolding the relationship between leachate quality
and landfill age are scanty. Literally, landfill age is not the
exact factor affecting leachate quality but the biochemical de-
composition process. Researchers tend to relate leachate qual-
ity to landfill age but not the biodegradation process because
practically it is difficult to predict leachate quality based on
landfill stabilisation stage. Landfill stabilisation stage determi-
nation requires data about its leachate or landfill gas charac-
teristics, the information we want at the first place. Lack of
any information about its leachate or landfill gas characteris-
tics, determination of landfill stabilisation stage is nearly im-
possible for sanitary landfill. In other words, landfill age is a
Environ Sci Pollut Res
feasible alternative factor for leachate quality prediction, in-
stead of the biodegradation phase.
As a landfill becomes older, the waste encapsulated be-
comes stabilised and the contaminants in leachate slowly taper
off. As discussed in the previous section, it shifts from accli-
mation phase towards maturation phase and leachate charac-
teristics alter in every distinct biochemical decomposition
stage. Leachate composition pattern over these stabilisation
phases is depicted in Table 9. Premised on the relationship
between landfill age and stabilisation stage, generalised leach-
ate characteristics over timescales are proposed (Table 10).
Nevertheless, a word of caution, classification of leachate
based on landfill age is not definite.
Landfill leachate treatments
Leachate is hazardous and detrimental. If it is discharged with-
out proper treatment, it may cause pollution and results in cat-
astrophic impacts on living organisms. Moreover, it jeopardies
concrete structures such as pile, beam and the piping system in
light of its corrosive properties (Agamuthu and H. 2008).
Deleterious impacts of inappropriate leachate management on
our ecosystem are evident and have been highlighted in many
literatures, albeit much of the mechanism remains unclear.
Hence, leachate management is now one of the critical
challenges associated with landfill operation (Méndez-
Novelo et al. 2005). Leachate effluent quality has to be good
enough and complies with the increasingly stringent domestic
discharge standards, ensuring the minimal possible impact on
our precious ecosystem. Table 11 shows the leachate dis-
charge standards from different countries. Studies addressing
the development of feasible technologies to tackle leachate
purification are significant, in order to ensure sustainable de-
velopment (Rivas et al. 2003).
However, owing to the variability in leachate characteris-
tics, the proper design of leachate treatment systems can be
complicated (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). The treatability of
landfill leachate is governed by its composition and character-
istics. A wealth of leachate treatment technologies has been
developed and evolved over the years. They can be organised
into three principal groups, namely leachate channelling, bio-
logical treatments and physico-chemical treatments (Fig. 9).
Biological treatments are efficient in removing organics,
whilst physico-chemical methods cope with the recalcitrant
compounds. Brief descriptions of these technologies are
summarised in Tables 12, 13, 14 and 15.
Each of these techniques has its own advantages and draw-
backs (Table 16). Therefore, leachate treatment systems often
employ sequential treatment design with integration between
physico-chemical and biological (aerobic and/or anaerobic) pro-
cesses (Guo et al. 2010; Tatsi et al. 2003; Wiszniowski et al.
2004), for example a membrane bioreactor (MBR) which incor-
porates both biological reactor and membrane filtration in a
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 10 General landfill

leachate characteristics at Parameter (mg/L) Landfill age (years)
different age *No unit for pH, BOD5/COD and TOC/COD
<2 2–10 > 10

Stabilisation status Young (fresh) Intermediate Mature (stabilised)

BOD5 2000–30,000 N.A. 100–200
COD 3000–60,000 3000–15,000 100–2800
TOC 1500–20,000 N.A. 80–160
BOD5/COD 0.5–1.0 0.06–0.5 < 0.1
TOC/COD < 0.3 0.3–0.5 > 0.5
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen 100–2000 N.A. N.A.
Ammoniacal-nitrogen 10–800 30–1800 20–900
Organic nitrogen 10–800 N.A. 80–120
Nitrate 5–40 N.A. 5–10
pH 4.5–7.5 6.5–7.5 6.6–7.5
Alkalinity as CaCO3 1000–10,000 N.A. 200–1000
Total hardness as CaCO3 300–10,000 N.A. 200–500
Total suspended solids 200–2000 N.A. 100–400
Heavy metals > 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0
Total phosphorus 5–100 N.A. 5–10
Orthophosphate 4–80 N.A. 4–8
Calcium 200–3000 N.A. 100–400
Magnesium 50–1500 N.A. 50–200
Potassium 200–1000 N.A. 50–400
Sodium 200–2500 N.A. 100–200
Chloride 200–3000 N.A. 100–400
Sulphate 50–1000 N.A. 20–50
Total iron 50–1200 N.A. 20–200

Adapted from Kurniawan et al. (2006), Fan et al. (2006), Alvarez-Vazquez et al. (2004), Tatsi and Zouboulis
(2002), Kang et al. (2002), O'Leary (2002)
N.A. not available

single operating system. Such leachate treatment system has cap- can be concluded that percentage removal of pollutants in-
tivated uprising research interest over past 10 years. creased after post-treatment.

Optimisation of SBR system for sanitary landfill

Recent development of landfill leachate treatment
technology
Membrane bioreactor and electro-Fenton process—India
Suresh (2016) have conducted a by using Fenton pretreated
landfill leachate with membrane bioreactor process and then
post-treated by electro-Fenton process. The pretreated values
of parameters were taken from previous studies which has
BOD/COD ratio 0.39. Result showed that percentage removal
obtained for BOD, COD, ammonium nitrogen, phosphate,
sulphate, sulphide and chloride was 79, 75, 74, 100, 59, 66
and 56%, respectively. After electro-Fenton followed by
MBR process, the percentage removal obtained for BOD,
COD, ammonium nitrogen, phosphate, sulphate, sulphide
and chloride was 74, 77, 88, 65, 66 and 83%, respectively. It
leachate—Egypt
Fouad et al. (2016) studied on improvement of leachate waste-
water treatment through addition of Micrococcus bacteria into
a mini-model SBR unit during aeration stage. The test was
conducted by using a three-sequence SBR tank. The first tank
was a primary sedimentation tank which is functional for pre-
cipitation of leachate wastewater with retention time of 12 h.
The second tank was the first aeration tank with the function
of oxidising and fixing organic materials. Aeration and flip-
ping are done by using the compressed and diffused air meth-
od through perforated air pipes with a retention time of 12 h.
The third tank was the second aeration tank which the
Micrococcus bacterium was added inside the tank and reten-
tion time was allowed for 12 h. Three different samples were
collected from each tank. Samples were collected after
Table 11 Landfill leachate discharge standards for different countries

Parameter Maximum discharge standard (mg/L, unless stated otherwise)

UKa USAa, c Germanyd Canadae Francef Australiag South Koreah Japani Chinaj Hong Kongk Thailandl Malaysiam

Temperature, °C – – – 32 – – – – – 45 – 40
pH 5.5–9 6–9 – 6.5–8.5 5.5–8.5 6.5–9 – – – 6–10 5.5–9 6–9
Turbidity (NTU) – – – – – 20 – – – – – –
BOD5 – 56 20 20 30 10 – – 30 700 20 20
COD – – 200 – 120 – 50 – 100 1500 120 400
DO – – – – – >6 – – – ≥4 – –
TOC – – 10 – – 15 – 0.1 – – – –
SS – 27 – 20 30 20 – 1.0 30 700 30 50
TDS – – – – – – – – – – 3000 –
NH3-N – 4.9 – 2.0 – 0.5 50 0.5 25 5.0 – 5.00
Total nitrogen – – 70 – – 5 – 0.05 40 100 – –
Inorganic nitrogen – – – – – – 150 – – – – –
TKN – – – – 30 – – – – – 100 –
Mercury, Hg 0.001 – 0.05 0.001 – 0.0001 – 0.0005 0.001 0.1 – 0.005
Aluminium, Al – – – 0.5 – – – 0.2 – – – –
Cadmium, Cd 0.005 – 0.1 0.05 – 0.002 – – 0.01 0.1 0.03 0.01
Chromium, Cr (III) 0.25 0.46 0.5 0.5 – – – – 0.1 2.0 – 0.20
Chromium, Cr (IV) – – – – – –
Chromium, Cr (V) – 0.0044 – – – –
Chromium, Cr (VI) – – – 0.02 – 0.05
Nickel, Ni 0.2 – 1.0 0.5 – 0.15 – – – 2.0 1.00 0.20
Lead, Pb 0.25 – 0.5 0.1 – 0.005 – – 0.1 2.0 0.20 0.10
Copper, Cu 0.05 – 0.5 0.1 – 0.01 – – – 2.0 2.00 0.20
Zinc, Zn 5.0 0.296 2.0 0.2 – 0.05 – – – 2.0 5.00 2.00
Arsenic, As 0.05 0.54 – 0.1 – 0.05 – – 0.1 2.0 – 0.05
Cyanide 0.005 – 0.2 0.1 – – – 0.1 – 1.0 – 0.05
Magnesium, Mg – – – – – – – 0.1 – – – –
Manganese, Mn – – – 0.5 – – – 0.1 – 0.5 5.0 0.20
Phosphorus, P – – 3.0 – – 0.5 – 3.0 3.0 10.0 – –
Tin, Sn – – – 0.5 – – – 0.001 – – – 0.20
Boron, B 7.0 – – 10.0 – – – 0.3 – 10.0 – 1.00
Iron, Fe 2.0 – – – 10.0 1.0 – 0.1 – 20.0 – 5.00
Silver, Ag 0.0001 – – – – 0.0001 – – – 0.1 – 0.10
Selenium, Se – – – 0.05 – 0.005 – – – 0.1 – 0.02
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Table 11 (continued)

Parameter Maximum discharge standard (mg/L, unless stated otherwise)

UKa USAa, c Germanyd Canadae Francef Australiag South Koreah Japani Chinaj Hong Kongk Thailandl Malaysiam

Barium, Ba – – – 1.0 – – – 0.1 – 6.0 – 1.00

Environ Sci Pollut Res

Total toxic metals – – – – – – – – – 4.0 – –

Fluoride 15.0 – – 15.0 – – – 0.02 – 10.0 – 2.00
Formaldehyde 0.05 – – – – – – – – – – 1.00
Phenol 0.3 0.029 – 0.2 – 0.05 – 5.0 ng/L – 0.5 – 0.001
Sulphide – – 1.0 – – – – 0.1 – 5.0 – 0.50
Oil and grease – – – 10.0 – – – – – 50.0 – 5.00
Colour – – – – – – 2000 K2PtCl6 – 40 (dilution 4.0 Lovibond – 100
multiple units ADMI
method) (25 mm length) (American Dye
Manufacturers
Institute)

– not available
a
Maximum monthly average
b
Environment Agency (2008)
c
EPA (2000)
d
Stegmann et al. (2005)
e
Oliver (2005)
f
Trebouet et al. (2001)
g
Ngo et al. (2008)
h
Ahn et al. (2002)
i
Kashiwadai et al. (2007)
j
MEP and GAQSIQ (2008)
k
Water Pollution Control Ordinance (1997)
l
Rukapan (2007)
m
Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer Station and Landfill) Regulations (2009)
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Landfill Leachate Treatment Methods

Leachate channelling Biological methods Physical/Chemical methods

Combined treatment with Aerobic treatment Anaerobic treatment Coagulation-flocculation

domestic sewage
Flotation

Recirculation Suspended growth Attached growth Suspended growth Attached growth Chemical precipitation
biomass system biomass system biomass system biomass system
Adsorption

Anaerobic Air stripping

Activated sludge Rotating biological
sequencing batch Anaerobic filter
process contactor
reactor (ASBR) Electrochemical process
Upflow anaerobic
Sequencing batch Trickling filter sludge blanket Hybrid filter Chemical oxidation
reactor (SBR) reactor (UASB)
Ion exchange
Moving bed Anaerobic
Aerated lagoon biofilm reactor fluidised bed Sand filtration
(MBBR) filter
Membrane filtration
Reed bed

Fig. 9 Hierarchy of landfill leachate treatments

constant retention times at 6, 9 and 12 h. For all samples,
physico-chemical parameters were measured including
COD, BOD, total suspended solids (TSS), pH, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus (TP) and NH3-N. Results of
the test show that SBR without bacterial additive has de-
creased the COD, BOD and TSS by 91.7, 90.4 and 92.9%,
respectively. However, by applying the bacterial additive in
SBR, the COD, BOD, TSS, TKN and NH3-N tend to decrease
by 97.9, 98.0, 98.3, 90.5 and 95.1%, respectively.
Landfill leachate treatment by hydrogen peroxide—Greece
Kirmizakis et al. (2014) studied about reduction of the organic
load of a mature landfill leachate by applying hydrogen per-
oxide under subcritical condition using novel experiment set-
up. Procedure of experiment was carried out by filling the
leachate onto laboratory-scale, stainless steel reactors and also
by adding appropriate quantities of hydrogen peroxide. The
purpose of using hydrogen peroxide is to produce hydroxyl
radicals that are highly reactive and oxidise the organic mol-
ecules of the leachate which can be archived under subcritical
condition (temperature in the range of 100–374 °C with
enough pressure to maintain the liquid state of water). Apart
from this, the study by using response surface methodology
(RSM) also was conducted to determine what parameter (tem-
perature, residence time and hydrogen peroxide concentra-
tion) played the most important role. Based on results obtain-
ed, the reduction of COD obtained was at 300 °C, 500 mM
H2O2 and 180 min residence time. It was determined that the
combination of oxidant concentration and temperature is the
rate-determining factor, whereas residence time has a lesser
effect on the process.
Hydrated lime and caustic soda—Malaysia
Hanira et al. (2017) in their study have investigated the uses
of hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) and caustic soda (NaOH) as a
softener agent in the removal of NH3-N, COD and colour in
a jar test experiment which was performed using Ca(OH)2
and NaOH at varying dosages ranging from nil to 12 g L−.
Ca(OH)2 and NaOH have the potential of increasing the pH
of the treatment process. The RSM was also used to predict
the optimum dosage and suitable types of chemicals for the
removal of NH3-N, COD and colour. The results obtained

Table 12 Description of leachate channelling methods

Leachate channelling

Method Brief description

Combined treatment with domestic sewage At location where a landfill is near a wastewater collection system, leachate is piped into the sewer
system and undergoes treatment with domestic sewage at conventional wastewater treatment plant
Recirculation Leachate is transferred from the base of landfill back to the tip. It infiltrates into waste body again to
enhance decomposition and eventually improves leachate quality
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 13 Description of aerobic biological leachate treatment methods

Biological methods (aerobic treatment)

Method Brief description

Suspended growth biomass system
Activated sludge process
Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
Aerated lagoon
Reed bed
Attached growth biomass system
Rotating biological contactor
Trickling filter
Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
A system where the bacteria grow and are suspended in the reactor liquid. It usually has
sludge that is considered to be granular or flocculent in nature (often both granular and
flocculent sludges coexist in a reactor)
Microorganisms develop in a tank injected with oxygen forming biological flocs (mixed liquor).
The microorganisms which are in suspension in the mixture consume the organic matter in
leachate and transform it into new microbial biomass, carbon dioxide and water. Subsequently,
it reduces the organic content in leachate. At the clarifier or settling tank, sludge settles and
the supernatant is discharged as effluent. A portion of the sludge is returned to the aeration tank
to re-seed incoming leachate with microorganism. The excess sludge is removed. Generally,
the reactions that take place in an activated sludge are absorption of soluble, colloidal and
suspended organics on sludge flocs, biodegradation (oxidation) of organics, bacteria ingestion
by protozoa, oxidation of ammonium to nitrite and nitrate as well as denitrification
Microorganisms are in suspension just like in the activated sludge. However, the major difference
is that aeration and sludge settlement take place in the same tank in a batch mode based on cycle
of operations. A SBR is therefore designed to operate under non-steady state condition unlike
the conventional activated sludge which operates under a continuous flow process. The cycles
comprise periods for leachate filling, aeration, settling and decanting. Leachate filling (loading)
is the intake of influent leachate in the SBR tank where microorganisms will have contact with
organic substances. Then, oxygen is injected to facilitate substrate consumption by
microorganism (biodegradation) as well as nitrification. After aeration, solid-liquid
separation takes place and the sludge settles leaving clear treated effluent above the
sludge blanket. Decanting (extraction) withdraws the treated effluent from the reactor
without disturbing the settled sludge.
An aerated lagoon is normally an artificial pond with microorganisms just like in an activated
sludge reactor. Dissolved oxygen is present throughout much of its depth. However,
it can exist naturally as well
Also known as wetland normally has a gentle sloping bed lined with impermeable barrier and
planted with emergent hydrophytes such as reeds (phragmites), bulrush (scirpus) or cattails
(typha). The inlet and outlet zones are usually constructed of crushed stones. As the leachate
travels slowly through the bed following a horizontal flow path, oxygen diffuses into the beds
then aerobic bacteria around the reed rhizomes uses it to oxidise organics in leachate.
The gravel or soil in which the reeds grow also acts as a filter medium
Either fixed film or carried media (the latter suspended in the liquid) is utilised in the system
to provide a space for the bacteria to grow and attach to
A rotating biological contactor is also known as a biorotor. It has circular plastic discs mounted
on a shaft which partially submerged in a tank containing leachate. As the shaft is slowly
rotated, the leachate passes over the disc surface. The microorganisms adhere to the disc and
start consuming organics in leachate, assimilating and treating the organics. Aerobic condition
is maintained. The disc provides contact between microorganisms and the leachate, whilst
mixing and aerating the mixed liquor
A trickling filter or so-called biological aerated filter consists of a bed of highly permeable media,
a water distributor and an under drain system. Microorganisms attached on the filter medium
like rocks, plastic and wood consume organic matters in leachate as food and degrade them.
It provides a surface for the microorganisms and hold back suspended solids acting as a
biological contactor as well as a filter, eliminating the need for a separate sedimentation step.
Typically, the filter bed is circular with varying depths from 0.9 to 2.5 m with an average
of 1.8 m. It is generally believed that it can achieve better nitrification compared to activated
sludge operations. Simultaneous removal of carbon and nitrogen is possible in a trickling filter
MBBR is also known as suspended-carrier biofilm reactor (SCBR) or fluidised bed reactor.
MBBR process is based on the use of continuously moving suspended porous polymeric
carriers for microorganism attachment in aeration tank. Microorganisms attach themselves
and grow on a plastic biofilm carrier or biocarrier that are suspended and in continuous
movement within the reactor on a specified volume. The biocarriers are designed for good
mass transfer of substrate and oxygen to the microorganisms. At the settling tank, sludge
settles and the supernatant is discharged as effluent. A portion of the sludge is returned to
the aeration tank to re-seed incoming leachate with microorganism
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 14 Description of anaerobic biological leachate treatment methods

Biological methods (anaerobic treatment)

Method Brief description

Suspended growth biomass system As discussed

Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR)
Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB)
Anaerobic filter
Hybrid filter
Anaerobic fluidised bed filter
It is similar to aforementioned SBR but in anaerobic condition
UASB involves an upward passage of leachate through an anaerobic sludge bed in a tank.
As the leachate passes through the sludge, microorganisms in the sludge consume and
degrade organics in the leachate. Eventually, biogas (methane and carbon dioxide) is
produced. As the gas moves upwards to escape, hydraulic turbulence takes place in
the reactor prompting mixing to enable more contact between microorganisms and
substrate. This enhances biodegradation. The gas is collected at the top of the reactor.
The sludge settles and the supernatant is discharged as effluent
It has a filter medium which anaerobic bacteria populations can establish upon and
then degrade organic substances in leachate as it moves slowly across the medium.
The filter medium acts as a biological contactor as well as a filter, eliminating the
need for a separate sedimentation step. Eventually, biogas (methane and carbon dioxide)
is produced at the same time
Hybrid bed filter consists of an anaerobic filter on top and an up-flow sludge blanket at
the bottom. It acts as a solid-gas separator and enhances solid’s retention without causing
channelling or short circuit. Its solid removal is enhanced by maximising microorganism
population in the reactor
It is similar to aforementioned fluidised bed filter but in an anaerobic condition

showed that optimum conditions obtained from desirable re-
sponse for Ca(OH)2 were at 5.9 g L−1 of dosage, where NH3-
N, COD and colour were successfully reduced up 52, 17.5
and 65%, respectively. In contrast, the optimum conditions
obtained from desirable response for NaOH were at 6.4 g L−1
of dosage, where NH3-N, COD and colour were successfully
remove up to 35, 2 and 49%, respectively.
Coupling anammox and advanced oxidation-based
technologies—Spain
A study conducted by Anfruns et al. (2013) evaluated the
suitability of combination of anammox process with ad-
vanced oxidation processes (AOPs) in treating of landfill
leachate with high nitrogen and non-biodegradable organic
matter concentration. This partial nitration-anammox sys-
tem coupled with combination of coagulation/flocculation,
ozonation and photo-Fenton was assessed in terms of ni-
trogen and carbon removal. The results obtained indicated
that total nitrogen removal efficiency achieved in the range
of 87–89% with both configuration without any external
carbon source. The COD removal efficiencies obtained
was 91% with combined coagulation/flocculation and
ozonation process whilst 98% with photo-Fenton. This
study proves that the combination of partial nitration-
anammox system with photo-Fenton treatment is more ef-
ficient compared to coagulation/flocculation and ozonation
treatment.
Mn and Ce oxide-impregnated GAC–ozone treatment
process—Taiwan
Wang et al. (2015) in their research studied treatability of
landfill leachate by using Mn and Ce oxide-impregnated
granular activated carbons (MnCe-ACs) with ozone pro-
cess (MnCe-AC/O3). Several treatment processes were
studied in this research for comparative study including
granular activated carbon (GAC), MnCe-AC, O3, GAC/
O3 and MnCe-AC/O3 processes. The MnCe-AC/O3 pro-
cess developed in this research combines both the advan-
tages of MnCe-AC (adsorption and catalytic properties)
and ozone (oxidation property). Eight MnCe-ACs are de-
veloped and prepared in this research. Experimental results
indicate that MnCe-AC/O3 processes could effectively re-
duce humic acid, TOC and COD in the landfill leachate to
desired levels. Results also show that the highest removal
efficiency is MnCe-AC/O 3 , followed by GAC/O 3, O 3 ,
MnCe-AC and GAC.
Alternative MSW management in Malaysia
In order to meet the demand and aspiration of government
to reduce the dependent of landfill for disposing of MSW,
other alternative has been initiated by the government of
Malaysia. Some of these alternative methods are recycling,
WTE, incineration, biological treatment/composting and
landfill gas recovery system (LFGRS).
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 15 Description of physico-chemical leachate treatment methods

Physical/chemical methods

Method Brief description

Coagulation-flocculation Coagulation and flocculation are used for the removal of impurities in the form of suspension or colloid. Coagulants like salts
of iron or aluminium are usually added at controlled pH values to form floc, the solid precipitates containing colloidal
particles which can be separated out using conventional solid-liquid separation processes. Flocculation encourages floc
growth by gentle mixing to help the subsequent separation process. Coagulant aids (often polyelectrolyte compounds) may
be added to improve coagulation by promoting the development of large, rapid-setting flocs
Flotation Flotation or dissolved air flotation (DAF) exploits the ability of some substances to float on leachate surface e on their own or
with the aid of air bubbles from below. It removes colloids, ions, macromolecules, microorganism and fibres from the
leachate. The solid particles are attached to small air bubbles and float to the surface, forming a scum/sludge layer which
can be removed by mechanical scrapers or scoops. Attraction between the air bubbles and the particles is due to the
adsorption forces or physical entrapment of bubbles within the particle, colloid or floc
Chemical precipitation Chemicals like hydrated lime, quicklime, magnesium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide are usually used to precipitate heavy
metals as hydroxides. The hydrated lime, Ca(OH)2, is most widely used and is generally the cheapest. Addition of alkali is
often required, to adjust its pH value to a point where the solubility of the metal of interest is minimal
Adsorption Adsorption is the adhesion of a substance from a liquid phase onto the surface of a solid material. Various adsorbent materials
can be used for leachate treatment. However, activated carbon is the most broadly used absorbent. Activated carbon is
normally used in either a powdered form (powdered activated carbon) or in a granular form (granular activated carbon)
Air stripping Ammonia stripping
This is a physico-chemical process which removes ammonia as a gas from leachate. Ammonia dissolves in water to form the
ammonium ion in the following manner:
NH3 + H2O = NH4+ + OH−
The relative proportions of dissolved ammonia gas and ammonium ions depend on the ph value and the temperature of the
leachate. Only the ammonia form is removed (as ammonia gas) by air stripping. At normal temperatures and neutral pH
values in leachate, only a small proportion (< 2%) of the total ammoniacal-nitrogen will be in the gaseous ammonia form.
High pH values are achieved by the addition of chemicals, e.g. calcium hydroxide. As ammonium ion is converted to
ammonia gas, leachate is cascaded down to allow the gas come out of solution and escape into the air. The air and gas are
then treated with H2SO4 which absorbs the gas. It removes a constant percentage of the incoming ammonia, regardless of
influent concentrations in leachate. Therefore, the progressive removal of ammoniacal-N is operating in a “half-life”
manner
Methane stripping
The partition of methane between dissolved and gaseous phases is governed by Henry’s Law. Therefore, removal of methane
gas from solution using the passage of air bubbles through the leachate will operate on a “half-life” principle. It means
passage of a given volume of air through a given volume of leachate will reduce concentrations of dissolved methane by a
fixed proportion
Electrochemical process Electrochemical processes for leachate treatment include electro-coagulation/electro-flocculation, electro-flotation and
electro-oxidation. The electrodes placed in the leachate can be aluminium or iron. With the application of an electric
current, coagulants are formed by the dissolution of the anode. For electro-flotation, small bubbles are formed. Hydrogen
gas is generated at the cathode and oxygen at the anode. Aluminium and iron precipitates formed can be removed by
sedimentation or by flotation. Besides, the oxidation of organic substances and ammoniacal-nitrogen can occur directly at
the anode or indirectly from the degradable content of the solution
Chemical oxidation Oxidation involves the loss of one or more electrons from the element being oxidised with the electron acceptor being another
element. These electron acceptors include an oxygen molecule or a chemical species containing oxygen. These electron
acceptors or oxidants directly react and mineralise contaminants
Advanced oxidation process (AOP)
AOP have been proposed in recent years as an effective alternative for mineralisation of recalcitrant organics in landfill
leachate. AOP enhance the chemical oxidation potentials by increasing the generation of the hydroxyl radicals. For landfill
leachate treatment, a limited range of oxidants, primarily ozone (O3) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) have found to be
successful. Use of others has been limited by the concerns about formation of toxic reaction by-products. For example,
chlorine and chlorine compounds give rise to trihalomethanes or other halogenated compounds
In addition, most AOP use a combination of strong oxidants like O3 and H2O2; irradiation like ultra-violet (UV), ultra-sound
(US) or electron beam (EB); and catalyst like transition metal ions or photocatalyst. Combinations like hydrogen peroxide
and Fenton process (H2O2/Fe2+), O3/UV, H2O2/UV, UV/Fe2+ and UV/TiO2 are no stranger to leachate treatment
Ion exchange Ion exchange removes ions from an aqueous solution by the exchange of anions or cations between contaminants and the
exchange medium. It is a reversible interchange of ions between the solid and liquid phases with no permanent change in
the solid structure. Typically, ion exchange materials consist of resins made from synthetic organic materials with ionic
functional groups. Exchangeable ions are attached to these ionic functional groups. They may also be inorganic or natural
polymeric materials
Sand filtration Sand filtration involves the passage of the effluent through a high quality sand media with a specific particle size range
between 0.8 and 1.7 mm. The application of sand filtration processes of any sort to raw leachates will rarely be appropriate.
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 15 (continued)

Physical/chemical methods

Method Brief description

Fixed bed sand filters, where a media (usually graded sand) traps and removes suspended solids from water passing
through the media, may operate using gravity to drive water downwards or by means of pressure applied from a pump
Membrane filtration Membrane technology is the application of membrane materials for the separation of two solutions with different
concentrations by a semi-permeable membrane. Pressure is induced to the more concentrated solution (leachate) to force
water to the one of lower concentration, whilst most of the leachate compounds are well retained. However, the degree of
retention varies depending on the membrane filtration scale (Fig. 10). Microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF),
nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) are typical examples of membrane technology
Microfiltration
Microfiltration is a low-pressure cross-flow membrane process for separating colloidal and suspended particles in the range of
0.05–10 μm. The membrane configuration is usually in cross-flow where the leachate is circulated parallel or tangential to
the membrane surface, ensuring limited clogging unlike in a frontal or dead-end filtration. As a result of the membrane pore
sizes, passage of some organic substances and minerals is allowed. Therefore, MF cannot be used alone in leachate
treatment. However, it can be used as pretreatment for other membrane processes like UF, NF or RO.
Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration is a membrane separation process similar to microfiltration, but with smaller pore sizes, in the range of
0.01–0.1 μm. It is a selective fractionation process utilising pressures up to 10 bar. Its configuration is usually in cross-flow
as well. It is effective in eliminating macromolecules and particles, but it is strongly dependent on the type of material
constituting the membrane. Although it allows the passage of low molecular weight organic solutes and salts through its
membrane, it can be used as pretreatment for reverse osmosis since it can remove the larger molecular weight compounds
that tend to disrupt (foul) the RO membrane
Nanofiltration
Nanofiltration is another pressure-driven membrane separation process with cross-flow membrane configuration. In NF, only
water and substances with molecular weight less than 200 Da (1 Da = 1.66 E-27 kg) permeate the semi-permeable
separation layer. Besides, NF membranes have a selectivity of charge for dissolved components. Monovalent ions and
water permeate, whilst divalent and multivalent ions are retained
Reverse osmosis
It is also another cross-flow pressure-driven membrane process like MF, UF and NF. The membrane pore sizes are much
smaller compared to those of NF, thus allowing only tiny amount of very low molecular weight solutes (ammonia and small
chlorinated organic compounds) to pass through. The process exploits the natural phenomenon of osmosis whereby if two
aqueous solutions, with different degree of concentration, are separated by a semi-permeable membrane, water from the
weakest solution will pass through the membrane to dilute the higher concentration solution. The process will continue till
solutions on both side of the membrane display the same degree of concentration. With reverse osmosis, the process is
reversed. Pressure is applied to leachate against a semi-permeable membrane forcing the water molecules to pass through
the membrane, thus forming the clean “permeate”. The majority of the solutes or contaminants will be left behind forming
the “concentrate”.
In contrast to normal filtration where solids are eliminated from a liquid, reverse osmosis succeeds in removing solutes from a
solvent. It has the ability to concentrate all dissolved and suspended solids, retaining more than 98% of large molecules
dissolved in leachate. The permeate contains a very low concentration of dissolved solids. It has been reported to be a very
efficient and promising method for leachate treatment. This process is in use throughout Europe including Germany,
France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Greece (Environmental Agency, 2007)

Colloids
Dissolved salts Organic macromolecules Bacteria
Viruses Pollen

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Size (µm)

RO
10-120 bar Nanofiltration
5-10 bar Ultrafiltration
1-10 bar Microfiltration
0.2-5 bar Sand/Gravel filtration

Fig. 10 Filtration scale comparison

Table 16 Summary of landfill leachate treatments’ performance

Method Target Performance Remarks

removal
Leachate Average removal Economical Skilled Secondary Pretreatment Installation
use of space personnel clarifier required and
Young Medium Old BOD COD TKN SS Turbidity requirement required operational
Environ Sci Pollut Res

cost

(a) Leachate
channelling
Combined Suspended Good Fair Poor Depending on domestic Good Less No No Less Excess biomass
treatment solid wastewater treatment expensive and nutrients;
with domestic plant possible
sewage toxicity
to microbes
Recirculation (Improve Good Fair Poor > 90 60–80 – – – Good Less No No Less Least expensive
leachate expensive and low
quality) efficiency
(b) Biological
methods
Activated Organics Good Fair Poor – 50–90 – – – Poor More No No Expensive Defoaming
sludge additives may
process be necessary;
separate
clarifier
needed;
hampered
by refractory
compound and
excess biomass;
inadequate
sludge
settleability and
longer aeration
times; high
energy
demand; costly
Sequencing Organics Good Fair Poor – – 50–70 – – Good More Yes No Less Similar to
batch reactor expensive activated
(SBR) sludge but no
separate
clarifier
needed;
applicable
only in
relatively
low flow rates;
Table 16 (continued)

Method Target Performance Remarks

removal
Leachate Average removal Economical Skilled Secondary Pretreatment Installation
use of space personnel clarifier required and
Young Medium Old BOD COD TKN SS Turbidity requirement required operational
cost

hampered by
refractory
compound and
excess biomass
Aerated lagoon Organics Good Fair Poor 80 40–95 > 80 30–40 30–40 Poor Less Yes Yes Expensive Requires large
land
area; hampered
by
refractory
compound and
excess biomass
Reed bed Organics Fair Fair Good – – – – – Poor Less Yes No Less Hampered by
expensive refractory
compound and
excess biomass
Trickling filter Organics Good Fair Fair – – – – – Good Less Yes Yes Expensive Hampered by
refractory
compound and
excess biomass
Rotating Organics Good Fair Poor – – – – Good Less Yes Yes Expensive Hampered by
biological refractory
contactor compound and
excess biomass;
adhesion of
heavy
metals inhibits
biological
activities; high
energy demand;
costly
Moving bed Organics Good Fair Poor – 20–80 – – – Poor More No No Expensive Hampered by
biofilm refractory
reactor compound and
(MBBR) excess biomass
Anaerobic Organics Good Fair Fair – 60–75 – – – Good More Yes No Less Hampered by
sequencing expensive refractory
batch reactor compound;
(ASBR)
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Table 16 (continued)

Method Target Performance Remarks

removal
Leachate Average removal Economical Skilled Secondary Pretreatment Installation
use of space personnel clarifier required and
Young Medium Old BOD COD TKN SS Turbidity requirement required operational
Environ Sci Pollut Res

cost

long time
and biogas
Upflow anaerobic Organics Good Fair Fair – 50–90 – – – Good Less Yes No Less Hampered by
sludge blanket expensive refractory
reactor (UASB) compound;
long time
and biogas
Anaerobic filter Organics Good Fair Fair – 60–95 – – – Good Less Yes Yes Expensive Hampered by
refractory
compound;
long time
and biogas
Hybrid filter Organics Good Fair Fair – 55–90 – – – Good Less Yes Yes Expensive Hampered by
refractory
compound;
long time
and biogas
Anaerobic Organics Good Fair Fair – – – – – Good Less Yes Yes Expensive Hampered by
fluidised refractory
bed filter compound;
long time
and biogas
Anaerobic Organics Good Fair Poor – – – – – Poor Less Yes Yes Expensive Lower power
lagoon requirements
and sludge
production
than aerobic
systems;
requires
heating; greater
potential for
process
instability;
slower than
aerobic systems
Membrane Organics Good Fair Fair > 80 > 85 > 80 > 99 40–60 Poor More No No Expensive Subject to fouling
bioreactor
Table 16 (continued)

Method Target Performance Remarks

removal
Leachate Average removal Economical Skilled Secondary Pretreatment Installation
use of space personnel clarifier required and
Young Medium Old BOD COD TKN SS Turbidity requirement required operational
cost

I. Physical/chemical
methods
Coagulation- Heavy Poor Fair Fair – 40–60 < 30 > 80 > 80 Fair More No Yes Less High sludge
flocculation metals and expensive production and
suspended subsequent
solids disposal as
hazardous
waste
Flotation Suspended Poor Fair Fair Poor Less No No Expensive Of limited
matter applicability
alone; may
be used in
conjunction
with other
treatment
processes;
high capital
cost
Ammonia/air Ammonia Poor Fair Fair – < 30 > 80 – 30–40 Poor More Yes Yes Expensive May require air
stripping or volatile pollution
organics control
equipment
Chemical Heavy metals, Poor Fair Poor – < 30 < 30 30–40 > 80 Fair More No Yes Less Produces sludge,
precipitation NH3-N and expensive possibly
some requires
anions disposal as
hazardous
waste
Adsorption Organic Poor Fair Good > 80 70–90 – – 50–70 Good More Yes Yes Less Carbon fouling
compounds expensive can be a
problem;
variable costs
depending on
leachate; GAC
adsorption
is costly
Chemical Organics; Poor Fair Fair – 30–90 – – > 80 Good More No Yes Expensive Works best on
oxidation detoxification dilute waste
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Table 16 (continued)

Method Target Performance Remarks

removal
Leachate Average removal Economical Skilled Secondary Pretreatment Installation
use of space personnel clarifier required and
Young Medium Old BOD COD TKN SS Turbidity requirement required operational
Environ Sci Pollut Res

cost

of some stream; use

inorganic of chlorine
species can result in
formation of
chlorinated
hydrocarbons;
residual
problem like
O3 for
ozonation;
require rigorous
safety
procedures;
high energy
consumption
for
photocatalytic
methods
Electrro-chemical Suspended Poor Fair Fair – – – – – Fair More No Yes Expensive Metal selective;
process solids and costly; no
some chemical is
inorganics required; high
energy
consumption
Microfiltration Suspended Poor Poor Poor – – – – – Good Less No No Expensive Useful only
solids as a polishing
step; used
after metal
precipitation
Ultrafiltration Bacteria Poor Fair Fair – 50 60–80 > 99 > 99 Good Less No No Expensive Subject to fouling;
and high of limited
molecular applicability
weight to leachate;
organics costly
Nanofiltration Sulphate Good Good Good 80 60–80 60–80 > 99 > 99 Good Less Yes No Expensive Useful only
salts and as polishing
hardness step; costly;
ions, like requires lower
Table 16 (continued)

Method Target Performance Remarks

removal
Leachate Average removal Economical Skilled Secondary Pretreatment Installation
use of space personnel clarifier required and
Young Medium Old BOD COD TKN SS Turbidity requirement required operational
cost

Ca(II) and pressure

Mg(II) than R0
Reverse Dilute solutions Good Good Good > 90 > 90 > 90 > 99 > 99 Good Less Yes No Expensive Costly; extensive
osmosis of organic pretreatment
and inorganic necessary
compounds
Sand Suspended Poor Poor Poor – – – – – Good Less No No Expensive High initial
filtration matter capital cost
and requires a
high degree of
control; useful
only as
polishing step
Ion exchange Dissolved Poor Fair Fair – – – – – Good More Yes Yes Expensive Useful as
inorganics, polishing
anions/cations step after
biological
treatment;
limited
application
due to high
concentration
of anions and
cations; costly;
high
regeneration
of materials
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Recycling
Recycling is the way of separating of separating of domestic
waste, glass, paper and other material to be reused back by the
industrial from benefit purposed (Zen et al., 2014). In
Malaysia, about 80% of municipal solid are recyclable which
is ideal for reducing total disposed waste quantities.
Household is the main target for recycling as 70–80% of total
solid waste composition found in landfill is from household
(Moh & Manaf, 2014). Malaysia has targeting to archive 22%
of total solid waste recycled by 2020 compared to current
recycling rate which is only 5%. The history of recycling in
Malaysia is begun in January 1993 through the National
Recycling Camping in order to encourage household
recycling activity. The result of the first recycling camping is
low which is caused from the lack of participation from public
due to poor public awareness and promotion program, lack of
commitment personal of authority and improper of master
plan focusing on recycling (Moh & Manaf, 2014). This result
in the second nationwide camping which has been launched
on 2 December 2000 with the participation of large counter-
part including local authorities, business enterprises, commer-
cial center, education institution and private solid waste con-
cessionaires. From time to time, Malaysian government has
put more effort to enhance recycling activity by emphasising
the recycling activity in the National Policy of Solid Waste
Management by using the concept and approach of 3Rs. In
addition, the launching of the Solid Waste Management and
Public Cleansing Act 2007 (Act 672) has emphasised the
household in Malaysia to conduct waste separation starting
at their homes with a fine of 1000 Ringgit being imposed on
households that disregarded the law (Zen et al., 2014).
Several studies and reviews have been conducted by
previous researchers on recycling which focus on factor
affecting the efficiency of recycling activities. A study
conducted by Zen et al. (2014) which determined underlying
factors that involve in recycling, besides classifying those re-
cyclers and non-recycles group. The study revealed that effi-
ciency of recycle that differentiate between recyclers and non-
recycles group depends on socioeconomic level, awareness
level and knowledge-related recycling. The study aimed to
examine the recycling behaviour on urban household in deter-
mining the factor that influence the willingness of the recycle
household waste conducted by Teo (2016). The results re-
vealed that there were two distinct groups of recyclers which
are proactive recycling and reactive recycling. Proactive
recycling was found to be a group of households with the
characteristic that enjoyed doing recycling activity and believe
recycle is helpful in preservative the environment. This group
also has the perspective of feeling guilty if they do not recycle.
On the other hand, reactive recyclers were found to be a group
of household which do not participate in recycling because of
lack of interest and responsibility and also do not have time to
do that. This group of people also believe that issues of solid
waste management are under responsible of local authority
without engagement from them. The study also concludes that
an increase of willingness to recycle is influenced by the
recycling incentives and programs which can be improved
by environmental policies of government and local
authorities.
Conclusions
Over the years, various sustainable landfill leachate treatment
techniques have been proposed and tested for treating highly
polluted leachate. At this point, here are some of the key
points from the extensive discussions regarding sustainable
landfill leachate treatment:
& Refractory compounds in leachate always change over
times due to human activities. Therefore, modification of
existing treatment technique may be viable to ensure the
treatment efficiency is consistent and in accordance to the
regulatory standards.
& There has been a steady progress of new and advanced
sustainable landfill leachate treatment which has been
proven to be a promising alternative.
& Utilising of advanced waste disposal method such as in-
cineration and recycling may be opted to mitigate the gen-
eration of landfill leachate.
& Though there are still uncertainties whether these tech-
niques could enhance environmental sustainability and
safety of human being, more work should be done to en-
sure a livelihood of human being and earth coexistence.
& Therefore, a holistic approach is essential in finding a
suitable leachate treatment opportunity in order to adhere
to regulatory standard by authorities.
Acknowledgements This research is supported by Solid Waste
Management Cluster (SWAM), Grant No.1001/CKT/870023, courtesy
from Science and Engineering Research Center (SERC) Universiti
Sains Malaysia.
References
Abbas AA, Jingsong G, Ping LZ, Ya PY, Al-Rekabi WS (2009) Review
on Landfill Leachate Treatments. J Appl Sci Res 5(5):534–545
Agamuthu P (2010) Implications of SWM legislations in Malaysia.
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama
Agamuthu P (2011) 3R policy implementation in Malaysia: strategic gap
analysis & recommendations. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES), Hayama
Agamuthu P & Fauziah SH (2008) Solid waste landfilling:
Environmental factors and health. In Proceedings of the EU-Asia
Solid Waste Management Conference, Malaysia, 28-29th October
2008. Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia.

Agarwal SP, Anwer MK, Khanna R, Ali A, Sultana Y (2010) Humic acid
from Shilajit—a physico-chemical and spectroscopic characteriza-
tion. J Serb Chem Soc 75:413–422
Ahn DH, Yun-Chul C, Won-Seok C (2002) Use of coagulation and zeo-
lite to enhance the biological treatment efficiency of high ammonia
leachate. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A:
Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering 37(2):
163–173. https://doi.org/10.1081/ESE-120002580
AIT/UNEP (2010) Municipal waste management report: Status-quo and
issues in Southeast and East Asian countries. Asian Institute of
Technology (AIT)/United Nations Environmental Programme
(UNEP), Kenya
Al-Hamadani YA, Yusoff MS, Umar M, Bashir MJ, Adlan MN (2011)
Application of psyllium husk as coagulant and coagulant aid in
semi-aerobic landfill leachate treatment. J Hazard mater 190(1):
582–587
Alvarez-Vazquez H, Jefferson B, and Judd SJ (2004) Membrane bioreac-
tors vs conventional biological treatment of landfill leachate: a brief
review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 79(10):1043–1049
Amokrane A, Comel C, Veron J (1997) Landfill leachates pretreatment by
coagulation-flocculation. Water Res 31:2775–2782
Anfruns A, Gabarró J, Gonzalez-Olmos R, Puig S, Balaguer MD,
Colprim J (2013) Coupling anammox and advanced oxidation-
based technologies for mature landfill leachate treatment. J Hazard
Mater 258:27–34
Anglada Á, Urtiaga A, Ortiz I, Mantzavinos D, Diamadopoulos E (2011)
Boron-doped diamond anodic treatment of landfill leachate: evalu-
ation of operating variables and formation of oxidation by-products.
Water Res 45(2):828–838
Annadurai G, Sung S, Lee D-J (2004) Simultaneous removal of turbidity
and humic acid from high turbidity stormwater. Adv Environ Res 8:
713–725
Aydın F, Kuleyin A (2011) The effect of modification and initial concen-
tration on ammonia removal from leachate by zeolite. World Acad
Sci Eng Technol Int J Environ Chem Ecol Geol Geophys Eng 5:
336–339
Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Adlan MN, Adnan NH, Alias S (2004) Physico-
chemical removal of iron from semi-aerobic landfill leachate by
limestone filter. Waste Manag 24:353–358
Aziz HA, Alias S, Assari F, Adlan MN (2007) The use of alum, ferric
chloride and ferrous sulphate as coagulants in removing suspended
solids, colour and COD from semi-aerobic landfill leachate at con-
trolled pH. Waste Manag Res 25:556–565
Backhaus T, Faust M (2012) Predictive environmental risk assessment of
chemical mixtures: a conceptual framework. Environ Sci Technol
46:2564–2573
Bank W (2011) Malaysia economic monitor. 1—smart cities. World
Bank. R, Bangkok
Bashir MJ, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Adlan MN (2010) Application of re-
sponse surface methodology (RSM) for optimization of ammoniacal
nitrogen removal from semi-aerobic landfill leachate using ion ex-
change resin. Desalination 254:154–161
Bong, C.P.C., Ho, W.S., Hashim, H., Lim, J.S., Ho, C.S., Tan, W.S.P. and
Lee, C.T., 2016. Review on the renewable energy and solid waste
management policies towards biogas development in Malaysia.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70(July 2015):988–
998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.004
Çeçen F, Aktas Ö (2004) Aerobic co-treatment of landfill leachate with
domestic wastewater. Environ Eng Sci 21:303–312
Chen, J, Wang, W, Wu, F, You, C, Liu, T, Dong, X, He, J & Zheng, H
(2012) Hydrogen sulfide alleviates aluminum toxicity in barley
seedlings. Plant and Soil. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11104-012-1275-7
Ching, S.L., Yusoff, M.S., Aziz, H.A. and Umar, M., 2011. Influence of
impregnation ratio on coffee ground activated carbon as landfill
Environ Sci Pollut Res
leachate adsorbent for removal of total iron and orthophosphate.
Desalination, 279(1), pp.225–234
Chong TL, Matsufuji Y, Hassan MN (2005) Implementation of the semi-
aerobic landfill system (Fukuoka method) in developing countries: a
Malaysia cost analysis. Waste Manag 25:702–711
Christensen TH, Kjeldsen P, Albrechtsen H Jr, Heron G, Nielsen PH,
Bjerg PL, Holm PE (1994) Attenuation of landfill leachate pol-
lutants in aquifers. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 24:119–202
Chu L, Cheung K, Wong M (1994) Variations in the chemical properties
of landfill leachate. Environ Manag 18:105–117
Comstock SE, Boyer TH, Graf KC, Townsend TG (2010) Effect of land-
fill characteristics on leachate organic matter properties and coagu-
lation treatability. Chemosphere 81:976–983
Cortez S, Teixeira P, Oliveira R, Mota M (2011) Evaluation of Fenton and
ozone-based advanced oxidation processes as mature landfill leach-
ate pre-treatments. J Environ Manag 92(3):749–755
De Velásquez MTO, Cruz-Rivera R, Rojas-Valencia N, Monje-Ramírez I,
Sánchez-Gómez J (2003) Serial water balance method for predicting
leachate generation in landfills. Waste Manag Res 21:127–136
DOLG (2006) The technical guideline for sanitary landfill: Design and
operation. Malaysia: Department of Local Government, Ministry of
Housing and Local Government
Donevska K, Jovanovski M, Jovanovski J (2010) Comparative analyses
of landfill leachate generation. BALWOIS Ohrid, Republic of
Macedonia
DOS (2011) Yearbook of statistics Malaysia 2010, Department of
Statistics (DOS), Malaysia
Ehrig H, Robinson H (2010) Landfilling: Leachate treatment. In:
Christensen T (ed) Solid Waste Technology and Management, 1 &
2. Blackwell Publishing Ltd./Wiley, United Kingdom, pp 858–897.
Elagroudy SA, Abdel-Razik MH, Abd El-Azeem MM, Ghobrial FH,
Warith MA (2009) Effect of waste composition and load application
on the biodegradation of municipal solid waste in bioreactor land-
fills. Prac Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manag 13:165–173
El-Fadel M, Bou-Zeid E, Chahine W, Alayli B (2002) Temporal variation
of leachate quality from pre-sorted and baled municipal solid waste
with high organic and moisture content. Waste Manag 22:269–282
Emenike CU, Fauziah SH, Agamuthu P (2012) Characterization and
toxicological evaluation of leachate from closed sanitary landfill.
Waste Manag Res 30:888–897
Environment Agency (2007) Guidance for the treatment of landfill leach-
ate. Sector Guidance Note IPPC S5.03, IPPC (International
Pollution Prevention and Control). Environment Agency, United
Kingdom from http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/static/
documents/Business/part_1_leachate_sgn_1738612.pdf
Environment Agency (2008) Environmental risk assessment: Part 2-
Assessment of point source releases and cost-benefit analysis.
Environment Agency, Bristol, United Kingdom
Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer
Station and Landfill) Regulations 2009. Malaysia
EPA (2000) Landfill manuals and landfill site design. Environmental
Protection Agency, Wexford
EPU (2006) Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011-2015. Putrajaya, Malaysia:
Economic Planning Unit (EPU)
European Commission Waste Landfill Directive (1999) http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31999L0031
European Commission (2010). Being wise with waste: the EU’s approach
to waste management. Luxembourg: European Union (EU). https://
doi.org/10.2779/93543
Fan HJ, Shu HY, Yang HS, Chen WC (2006) Characteristics of landfill
leachates in central Taiwan. Science of the Total Environment
361(1-3):25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.09.033
Fazeli A, Bakhtvar F, Jahanshaloo L, Sidik NAC, Bayat AE (2016)
Malaysia's stand on municipal solid waste conversion to energy: a
review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 58:1007–1016
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Fenn DG, Hanley KJ, De Geare TV (1975) Use of the water balance
method for predicting leachate generation from solid waste disposal
sites, EPA/530/SW-168. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C
Foo K, Hameed B (2009) An overview of landfill leachate treatment via
activated carbon adsorption process. J Hazard Mater 171:54–60
Fouad HA, El-Hefny RM, Ali MN, Ahmed MEY (2016) Optimization of
SBR system for sanitary landfill leachate treatment in Egypt. Journal
of Applied Sciences Research 12:56–62
Ghafari S, Aziz HA, Isa MH, Zinatizadeh AA (2009) Application of
response surface methodology (RSM) to optimize coagulation–floc-
culation treatment of leachate using poly-aluminum chloride (PAC)
and alum. J Hazard Mater 163(2):650–656
Goh BL (2007) Malaysia. In environmental management centre. In:
Mumbai I (ed) Solid waste management: Issues and challenges in
Asia. Asian Productivity Organization (APO), Tokyo, Japan, pp
118–141
González C, Buenrostro O, Marquez L, Hernández C, Moreno E, Robles
F (2011) Effect of solid wastes composition and confinement time
on methane production in a dump. J Environ Prot 2:1310
Guo J-S, Abbas AA, Chen Y-P, Liu Z-P, Fang F, Chen P (2010) Treatment
of landfill leachate using a combined stripping Fenton, SBR, and
coagulation process. J Hazard Mater 178:699–705
Hanira NM, Hasfalina CM, Sani A, Rashid M (2017) Pre-treatment am-
monia removal of scheduled waste leachate with hydrated lime and
caustic soda. J Teknol 79(1):107–118
Hannan MA, Al Mamun MA, Hussain A, Basri H, Begum RA (2015) A
review on technologies and their usage in solid waste monitoring
and management systems: issues and challenges. Waste Manag 43:
509–523
Hezri A (2010) Toward 3R-based waste management: policy change in
Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines. 3R Policies for Southeast and
East Asia Jakarta: ERIA:274–290
Huo SL, Xi BD, Yu HC, Liu HL (2009) Dissolved organic matter in
leachate from different treatment processes. Water Environ J 23:
15–22
Idris A, Inanc B, Hassan MN (2004) Overview of waste disposal and
landfills/dumps in Asian countries. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 6:
104–110
IGES, UNCRD & UNEP (2009) National 3R strategy development - A
progress report on seven countries in Asia from 2005 to 2009.
United Nations Centre for Regional Development, United Nations
Environmental Programme/Regional Resource Centre in Asia and
the Pacific, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Thailand
Retrieved 18th March, 2012, from http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/
modules/envirolib/upload/2637/attach/national_3r_strategy_
development(fullversion).pdf
Imura H, Yedla S, Shirakawa H, Memon MA (2005) Urban environmen-
tal issues and trends in Asia—an overview. Int Rev Environ Strateg
5:357
Jemec A, Tišler T, Žgajnar-Gotvajn A (2012) Assessment of landfill
leachate toxicity reduction after biological treatment. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 62:210–221
Johnson RA (1986) SOILINEr model—documentation and user’s guide.
EPA-530-SW-86-006A
Jokela JP, Kettunen RH, Rintala JA (2002) Methane and leachate pollut-
ant emission potential from various fractions of municipal solid
waste (MSW): effects of source separation and aerobic treatment.
Waste Manag Res 20:424–433
Kadir SASA, Yin CY, Sulaiman MR, Chen X, El-Harbawi M (2013)
Incineration of municipal solid waste in Malaysia: salient issues,
policies and waste-to-energy initiatives. Renew Sust Energ Rev
24:181–186
Kamaruddin MA, Yusoff MS, Aziz HA, Basri NK (2013) Removal of
COD, ammoniacal nitrogen and colour from stabilized landfill
leachate by anaerobic organism. Appl Water Sci 3(2):359–366
Kamaruddin MA, Yusoff MS, Aziz HA, Hung YT (2015) Sustainable
treatment of landfill leachate. Appl Water Sci 5(2):113–126
Kang K-H, Shin HS, Park H (2002) Characterization of humic substances
present in landfill leachates with different landfill ages and its im-
plications. Water Res 36:4023–4032
Karaca F, Özkaya B (2006) NN-LEAP: A neural network-based model
for controlling leachate flow-rate in a municipal solid waste landfill
site. Environ Modell Soft 21:1190–1197
Katsumata H, Sada M, Kaneco S, Suzuki T, Ohta K, Yobiko Y (2008)
Humic acid degradation in aqueous solution by the photo-Fenton
process. Chem Eng J 137:225–230
Kashiwadai S, Osaki K, Yasuhara A, Ono Y (2005) Toxicity studies of
landfill leachates using Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes).
Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology 11:59–71 from http://www.
ecotox.org.au/aje/archives/vol11p59.pdf
Khanbilvardi RM, Ahmed S, Gleason PJ (1995) Flow investigation for
landfill leachate (FILL). J Environ Eng 121:45–57
Khattabi H, Aleya L, Mania J (2002) Changes in the quality of landfill
leachates from recent and aged municipal solid waste. Waste Manag
Res 20:357–364
Kiepper B (2010) Understanding laboratory wastewater tests: I. Organics
(BOD, COD, TOC, O&G). The University of Georgia College of
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Athens
Kirmizakis P, Tsamoutsoglou C, Kayan B, Kalderis D (2014) Subcritical
water treatment of landfill leachate: application of response surface
methodology. J Environ Manag 146:9–15
Kjeldsen P, Barlaz MA, Rooker AP, Baun A, Ledin A, Christensen TH
(2002) Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leach-
ate: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 32:297–336
Komilis D, Ham R, Stegmann R (1999) The effect of municipal solid
waste pretreatment on landfill behavior: a literature review. Waste
Manag Res 17:10–19
Kühle-Weidemeier M (2003). Present and future landfill policy in
Germany. In Seminar on research, practical experience and views
of modern landfills in Germany, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Germany: Wasteconsult International. Retrieved 15th June, 2012,
from http://www.wasteconsult.de/policy.pdf
Kurniawan TA, Lo W-H, Chan GY (2006) Physico-chemical treatments
for removal of recalcitrant contaminants from landfill leachate. J
Hazard Mater 129:80–100
Lim, Y.N., Shaaban, M.G. and Yin, C.Y., 2009. Treatment of landfill
leachate using palm shell-activated carbon column: Axial dispersion
modeling and treatment profile. Chemical Engineering Journal,
146(1), pp.86-89
Lipczynska-Kochany E, Kochany J (2008) Effect of humic substances on
the Fenton treatment of wastewater at acidic and neutral pH.
Chemosphere 73:745–750
Liu X, Li XM, Yang Q, Yue X, Shen TT, Zheng W, Luo K, Sun YH, Zeng
GM (2012) Landfill leachate pretreatment by coagulation–floccula-
tion process using iron-based coagulants: optimization by response
surface methodology. Chem Eng J 200:39–51
Manaf LA, Samah MAA, NIM Z (2009) Municipal solid waste manage-
ment in Malaysia: Practices and challenges. Waste Manag 29:2902–
2906
Matejczyk M, Płaza GA, Nałęcz-Jawecki G, Ulfig K, Markowska-
Szczupak A (2011) Estimation of the environmental risk posed by
landfills using chemical, microbiological and ecotoxicological test-
ing of leachates. Chemosphere 82:1017–1023
Matsufuji K (2007) Caution for application of “Fukuoka Method” (Semi-
aerobic landfill technology). JICA Training text. Japanese
International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Japan from http://www.
sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/global/159.pdf
Mcbean EA, Rovers FA, Farquhar GJ (1995) Solid waste landfill engi-
neering and design. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River
Méndez-Novelo RI, Castillo-Borges ER, Sauri-Riancho MR, Quintal-
Franco CA, Giacomán-Vallejos G, Jiménez-Cisneros B (2005)

Physico-chemical treatment of Merida landfill leachate for chemical
oxygen demand reduction by coagulation. Waste Manag Res 23:
560–564
MEP & GAQSIQ (2008) Standard for Pollution Control on the Landfill
Site of Municipal Solid Waste (GB 16889-2008) (in Chinese).
Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and General
Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine
(GAQSIQ), Beijing from http://english.mep.gov.cn/
MHLG (2006) Technical Guideline for Sanitary Landfill, Design and
Operation, August 2006. Department of Local Government,
Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG), Malaysia
MHLG (2009) Annual Ministry of Housing and Local Government
Report 2008 (in Malay). Ministry of Housing and Local
Government (MHLG)., Malaysia http://www.kpkt.gov.my/kpkt/
index.php/pages/view/104
MHLG (2011) MHLG Statistics 2010. Ministry of Housing and Local
Government (MHLG), Malaysia http://www.kpkt.gov.my/kpkt/
fileupload/perangkaan_terpilih/pt2010/dis/PROGRAM_
PENGURUSAN_SISA_PEPEJAL.pdf
MHLG (2012) Solid waste management lab, 26 March - 13 April 2012
(in Malay). Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG),
Malaysia from http://www.kpkt.gov.my/kpkt/fileupload/hebahan/
lab_sisa_pepejal.pdf
Min J-E, Kim M, Kim JY, Park I-S, Park J-W (2010) Leachate modeling
for a municipal solid waste landfill for upper expansion. KSCE J
Civil Eng 14:473–480
Moh YC, Manaf LA (2014) Overview of household solid waste recycling
policy status and challenges in Malaysia. Resour Conserv Recycl
82:50–61
Moreno-Casillas HA, Cocke DL, Gomes JA, Morkovsky P, Parga J,
Peterson E (2007) Electrocoagulation mechanism for COD removal.
Sep Purif Technol 56:204–211
Nadzri YLI (2007) Solid waste management. Presentation during UNDP
Conference on Climate Change Preparedness. National Solid Waste
Department, Kuala Lumpur
Nadzri Y & Larsen I (2008) Federalising solid waste management in
Peninsular Malaysia. International Solid Waste Association
(ISWA) World Congress in Singapore, November 2008. Malaysian
Government/DANIDA Solid Waste Management Component, from
http://www.danidaurban.com/swmc/download/SWMC_TEC_03-
123-Federalising%20SWM%20Peninsular%20M'sia.pdf
Nanny MA, Ratasuk N (2002) Characterization and comparison of hy-
drophobic neutral and hydrophobic acid dissolved organic carbon
isolated from three municipal landfill leachates. Water Res 36:1572–
1584
Newsletter No.76, 2011, 4-5. Japan Society of Material Cycle and Waste
Management., from http://jsmcwm.or.jp/international/pdf/News76.pdf
Ngo H, Guo W, Xing, W. (2008) Applied technologies in municipal solid
waste landfill leachate treatment. Water and wastewater treatment
technologies. Encyclopedia of Life Support System (EOLSS).
Retrieved 15th March, 2017 from http://www.eolss.net/Sample-
Chapters/C07/E6-144-20.pdf
Nordberg GF, Fowler BA, Nordberg M, & Friberg L (2007) Handbook
on the toxicology of metals. 3rd edn.
NSWMD (2011) Summary of solid waste disposal sites in Malaysia
(January 2011) (in Malay). National Solid Waste Management
Department (NSWMD), Malaysia
O'Leary PRT (2002) Landfilling. In: Tchobanoglous G, Kreith F (eds)
Handbook of solid waste management, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New
York, pp 14.1–14.87
Oliver NC (2005) Hazardous waste legislation guide. Ministry of
Environment, British Columbia
Øygard JK, Gjengedal E, Røyset O (2007) Size charge fractionation of
metals in municipal solid waste landfill leachate. Water Res 41:47–54
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Pablos MV et al (2011) Correlation between physicochemical and eco-
toxicological approaches to estimate landfill leachates toxicity.
Waste Manag 31:1841–1847
Periathamby A, Hamid FS, Khidzir K (2009) Evolution of solid waste
management in Malaysia: Impacts and implications of the solid
waste bill, 2007. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management 11(2):96–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-008-
0231-3
Reinhart DR, Grosh CJ (1998) Analysis of Florida MSW Landfill
Leachate Quality. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management, Florida
Renou S, Givaudan J, Poulain S, Dirassouyan F, Moulin P (2008)
Landfill leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J Hazard
Mater 150:468–493
Rivas FJ, Beltrán F, Gimeno O, Acedo B, Carvalho F (2003) Stabilized
leachates: ozone-activated carbon treatment and kinetics. Water Res
37:4823–4834
Rojas MN, Sahagún C (2012) Determining the effects of leachates infil-
trating crop areas. Toxicol Environ Chem 94:327–339
Rukapan W (2007) Improvement of leachate management in solid waste
disposal facilities: case study in Thailand. Payatas Seminar 2007,
UP National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS). Japan:
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Samudro G, Mangkoedihardjo S (2010) Review on BOD COD and
BOD/COD ratio: a triangle zone for toxic, biodegradable and stable
levels. Int J Acad Res 2:235–239
São Mateus SC, Machado SL, Barbosa MC (2012) An attempt to perform
water balance in a Brazilian municipal solid waste landfill. Waste
Manag 32:471–481
Schroeder PR, Aziz NM, Lloyd CM, Zappi PA (1994) The hydrologic
evaluation of landfill performance (HELP) model: user’s guide for
version 3, EPA/600/R-94/168a, September 1994. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC
Shariatmadari N, Abdoli M, Ghiasinejad H, Alimohammadi P (2010)
Assessment of HELP model performance in arid areas. Case study:
landfill test cells in Kahrizak. Res J Environ Sci 4:359–370
Singh SK, Townsend TG, Mazyck D, Boyer TH (2012) Equilibrium and
intra-particle diffusion of stabilized landfill leachate onto micro-and
meso-porous activated carbon. Water Res 46(2):491–499
Slack R, Gronow J, Voulvoulis N (2005) Household hazardous waste in
municipal landfills: contaminants in leachate. Sci Total Environ 337:
119–137
Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act (2007), Act 672.
Government of Malaysia
Stegmann R, Heyer KU, Cossu R (2005) Leachate treatment. In
Proceedings Sardinia 2005, Tenth International Waste Management
and Landfill Symposium, 3-7 October 2005, Italy. Italy: CISA,
Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, from http://www.
image.unipd.it/tetrawama/S2005/leachate_treatment.pdf
Sun J, Li X, Feng J, Tian X (2009) Oxone/Co2+ oxidation as an advanced
oxidation process: comparison with traditional Fenton oxidation for
treatment of landfill leachate. Water Res 43(17):4363–4369
Sunkin M, Ong DM & Wight R (2002) Sourcebook on environmental law
Suresh A (2016) Treatment of landfill leachate by membrane bioreactor
and electro Fenton process. Int J Eng Sci Res Technol 1(5):689–697
Tan ST, Lee CT, Hashim H, Ho WS, Lim JS (2014) Optimal process
network for municipal solid waste management in Iskandar
Malaysia. J Clean Prod 71:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2013.12.005
Tan ST, Ho WS, Hashim H, Lee CT, Taib MR, Ho CS (2015) Energy,
economic and environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy
(WTE) strategies for municipal solid waste (MSW) management
in Malaysia. Energy Convers Manag 102:111–120
Tashiro T (2011) IRBC: the “Fukuoka Method”: semi-aerobic landfill
technology—Fukuoka region, Japan. Programme document at
Environ Sci Pollut Res
International Regions Benchmarking Consortium (IRBC). Metro
Vancouver, British Columbia
Tatsi A, Zouboulis A (2002) A field investigation of the quantity and
quality of leachate from a municipal solid waste landfill in a
Mediterranean climate (Thessaloniki, Greece). Adv Environ Res 6:
207–219
Tatsi A, Zouboulis A, Matis K, Samaras P (2003) Coagulation–floccula-
tion pretreatment of sanitary landfill leachates. Chemosphere 53:
737–744
Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S (1993) Integrated solid waste man-
agement: engineering principles and management issues. McGraw-
Hill, Inc., New York
Teo CBC (2016) Recycling behaviour of malaysian urban households
and upcycling prospects
Tränkler J, Visvanathan C, Kuruparan P, Tubtimthai O (2005) Influence
of tropical seasonal variations on landfill leachate characteristics—
results from lysimeter studies. Waste Manag 25:1013–1020
Trebouet D, Schlumpf JP, Jaouen P, Quemeneur F (2001) Stabilized land-
fill leachate treatment by combined physicochemical-nanofiltration
processes. Water Research 35(12):2935–2942. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0043-1354(01)00005-7
Ujang Z (2004) Part 1—conventional landfill design & operation from
design to problem solving. Workshop on New Technologies for
Cost-effective Landfill Management. UTM, Kuala Lumpur, p 7
UNEP (2005) Solid waste management (Volume II: Regional overviews
and information sources). CalRecovery, Inc. & UNEP International
Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), from http://www.unep.
org/ietc/Portals/136/SWM_Vol-II.pdf
UNEP (2010) Waste and climate change: Global trends and strategy
framework. United Nations Environment Programme, Kenya
Retrieved 8th June, 2012, from http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/
Publications/spc/Waste&ClimateChange/Waste&ClimateChange.
pdf
USEPA (2010) Wastes specificially excluded from RCRA. EPA
Hazardous Wastes. US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), Washington, D.C from http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/
wastetypes/wasteid/exclude.htm/
Uygur A, Kargı F (2004) Biological nutrient removal from pre-treated land-
fill leachate in a sequencing batch reactor. J Environ Manag 71:9–14
Vesilind PA, Morgan SM, Heine LG (2010) Introduction to environmen-
tal engineering—SI version. Cengage Learning, Boston
Wang Z-p, Zhang Z, Lin Y-J, Deng N-S, Tao T, Zhuo K (2002) Landfill
leachate treatment by a coagulation–photooxidation process. J
Hazard Mater 95:153–159
Wang JM, Lu CS, Chen YY, Fan HJ (2015) Landfill leachate treatment
with Mn and Ce oxides impregnated GAC–ozone treatment process.
Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 482:536–543
Water Pollution Control Ordinance (1997) Technical memorandum stan-
dards for effluents discharged into drainage and sewerage systems,
inland and coastal waters. Water Pollution Control Ordinance, Cap
358 section 21. Hong Kong. Retrieved 18th March, 2012, from
http:/www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/
Widziewicz K, Kalka J, Skonieczna M & Madej P (2012) The comet
assay for the evaluation of genotoxic potential of landfill leachate.
The Scientific World Journal, 2012, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1100/
2012/435239
Williams PT (2013) Waste treatment and disposal. John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken
Wiszniowski J, Robert D, Surmacz-Gorska J, Miksch K, Malato S, Weber
J-V (2004) Solar photocatalytic degradation of humic acids as a
model of organic compounds of landfill leachate in pilot-plant ex-
periments: influence of inorganic salts. Appl Catal B Environ 53:
127–137
Worrell WA, Vesilind AP (2011) Solid waste engineering—SI version.
Cengage Learning, Boston
Wu JJ, Wu C-C, Ma H-W, Chang C-C (2004) Treatment of landfill leach-
ate by ozone-based advanced oxidation processes. Chemosphere 54:
997–1003
Wu Y, Zhou S, Qin F, Peng H, Lai Y, Lin Y (2010) Removal of humic
substances from landfill leachate by Fenton oxidation and coagula-
tion. Process Saf Environ Prot 88:276–284
Yamada M (2011) Application of the semi-aerobic landfill system to
Southeast Asia - A joint study between NIES of Japan, and
Kasetsart University and Laem Chabang Municipality of Thailand
Yuan W, Zydney AL (1999) Humic acid fouling during microfiltration. J
Membr Sci 157:1–12
Zen IS, Noor ZZ, Yusuf RO (2014) The profiles of household solid waste
recyclers and non-recyclers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat
International 42:83–89
Zouboulis AI, Chai X-L, Katsoyiannis IA (2004) The application of
bioflocculant for the removal of humic acids from stabilized landfill
leachates. J Environ Manag 70:35–41